An Inconvenient Truth

[Fosco33]

I'm only mildly concerned about the 'increases' in green house gases and global warming. Throughout Earth's history, there have been periods of warming and cooling - plenty of this attributable to natural acts (volcanism being the main source, meteorite impacts, etc). Certainly, the use of fossil fuels and reductions of the rain forests have led to an undetermined effect on global warming.

I am concerned more about the human race's ability to reach the point where lack of clean water and resources needed to maintain the current style of living are used up (concrete, steel, etc.). Steven Hawking preached last week that humans should concentrate on space exploration and leaving Earth before a cataclysmic disaster kills us all (either natural or through MAD weapons -bio and nuclear threats).

Seeing Venice, Italy disappear will be a sad day for us all but IMO the US will be put in a precarious place unless we cut our love of oil and improve relations with enemy nations. There's not enough resources available (steel and concrete) to 'modernize' China and India to the state were in today. Our ability to continually innovate and improve technology while becoming a service economy will continue to separate the US from the rest. It's tough knowing we're outsourcing our manual labor force - but a necessary act for long-term sustainability.

The best part about all of this is that we have the ability and ingenuity to make all these things possible (using different materials, 'creating' materials, altering fuel source usage, etc.).

[Harlan Huckleby]

Of course humans are "a" factor in climate change. I don't think anyone questions that .... The questions that are being asked by reasonable people are: How large of a factor are humans (in other words, are they "the" factor)?

I was paraphrasing a long article, your argument is with my shorthand. The consensus opinion was that "most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations." None of the 928 papers contradicted this opinion. 75% argued it directly. You have to read the whole article, but the high degree of scientific consensus is undeniable.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Does "climate change" equate to "catastophic natural disaster" as folk like Al Gore like to assert as absolute truth.

People like Gore seem to find pleasure in defining the "human factor" as big business, conservatives driving SUVs, and most importantly, republican administrations and then predicting unspecified "global catastrophies" as a direct result of the senseless and evil acts of those involved in the "human factor." It is easy to demonize, afterall, when you don't include yourself as one of the demons.

I don't know much about the consequences of global warming. But I suspect the worry-warts have some substance.

Regarding SUV's, I would be open to adding a tax on any vehicle that produces excessive greenhouse gases. I beleive this is practical and justified.

Sorry to see that you frame this issue in terms of politics. Rush Limbaugh is also at his worst on this issue. Remember, he has long claimed "global warming" to be a political conspiracy, and he looks increasingly foolish. Sounds like you part ways with him on the existence of (human caused) global warming, but you've moved the conspiracy over to the consequences part.

[Patler]

The deflection of radiation mitigates the greenhouse effect. Scientific data and understanding moves forward, and a solid consensus now exists that global warming over-rides global cooling.

It's this consensus that I was just looking into. I found that it is pure myth that the scientific community is divided on the existence of human-caused global warming. The contrarians in climatology are rare.


Ten years ago there was a legitimate debate on the existence of human-created global warming. But the argument is over now. I'm angry that people still get away with dismissing the issue by claiming significant scientific uncertainty.

You must have read the headlines, without reading the underlying articles and analysis. For example:

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that global warming in the last 50 years is likely the result of increases in greenhouse gases, which accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community, the committee said. However, it also cautioned that uncertainties about this conclusion remain because of the level of natural variability inherent in the climate on time scales from decades to centuries, the questionable ability of models to simulate natural variability on such long time scales, and the degree of confidence that can be placed on estimates of temperatures going back thousands of years based on evidence from tree rings or ice cores. (Emphasis mine.)

[Patler]

"The stated degree of confidence in the IPCC assessment is higher today than it was 10, or even 5 years ago, but uncertainty remains because of (1) the level of natural variability inherent in the climate system on time scales of decades to centuries, (2) the questionable ability of models to accurately simulate natural variability on those long time scales, and (3) the degree of confidence that can be placed on reconstructions of global mean temperature over the past millennium based on proxy evidence. Despite the uncertainties, there is general agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past 20 years. Whether it is consistent with the change that would be expected in response to human activities is dependent upon what assumptions one makes about the time history of atmospheric concentrations of the various forcing agents, particularly aerosols."

Doesn't sound to me like even those who contributed to the report are convinced that natural forces are insignificant.

[Patler]

"What are the specific areas of science that need to be studied further, in order of priority, to advance our understanding of climate change?

"Making progress in reducing the large uncertainties in projections of future climate will require addressing a number of fundamental scientific questions relating to the buildup of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere and the behavior of the climate system. Issues that need to be addressed include
...
(e) details of the regional and local climate change consequent to an overall level of global climate change, (f) the nature and causes of the natural variability of climate and its interactions with forced changes,"

[Patler]

More uncertainty from the report Harlan cites:

'Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing agents (and particularly aerosols), a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established. The fact that the magnitude of the observed warming is large in comparison to natural variability as simulated in climate models is suggestive of such a linkage, but it does not constitute proof of one because the model simulations could be deficient in natural variability on the decadal to century time scale. The warming that has been estimated to have occurred in response to the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is somewhat greater than the observed warming. At least some of this excess warming has been offset by the cooling effect of sulfate aerosols, and in any case one should not necessarily expect an exact correspondence because of the presence of natural variability."

[HarveyWallbangers]

Regarding SUV's, I would be open to adding a tax on any vehicle that produces excessive greenhouse gases. I beleive this is practical and justified.

I knew you were a liberal all this time. First solution is to raise taxes on those vehicles--to go along with the gas tax, sin tax, inheritance tax, death tax, marriage tax, license fees, income tax, sales tax, property tax. There ain't a friggin' thing they aren't willing to tax.

[Scott Campbell]

Regarding SUV's, I would be open to adding a tax on any vehicle that produces excessive greenhouse gases. I beleive this is practical and justified.

I knew you were a liberal all this time. First solution is to raise taxes on those vehicles--to go along with the gas tax, sin tax, inheritance tax, death tax, marriage tax, license fees, income tax, sales tax, property tax. There ain't a friggin' thing they aren't willing to tax.

Don't forget the gated community tax.

[SkinBasket]

Regarding SUV's, I would be open to adding a tax on any vehicle that produces excessive greenhouse gases. I beleive this is practical and justified.

I knew you were a liberal all this time. First solution is to raise taxes on those vehicles--to go along with the gas tax, sin tax, inheritance tax, death tax, marriage tax, license fees, income tax, sales tax, property tax. There ain't a friggin' thing they aren't willing to tax.

And when you add them all up, more than half of what you make goes to your various forms of government. But I guess some people don't see a problem with that. I mean look at the wonderful education the kids of Milwaukee are getting for that price. And Mil county still can't find a way to bridge the 80 mil gap in spending this year. Great stuff. But raise another tax. I'm sure it'll be spent well. Maybe we can get another deep tunnel project. Or maybe we can work on resurfacing the streets downtown that no one uses because the city has taxed just about every business out of there. More taxes! Yeah!

On a practical note, HH, who is going to decide what "excessive" greenhouse gases are? Where's the cutoff? Who's exempt? Why only SUVs? Because they're a popular target? What about semis, buses, boats, trains, construction machinery, minivans, cars over 8 years old, and that excessive gas produced the the collective anus of millions of cows? Are you going to tax all of them if they produce as much greenhouse gas as an SUV? How are you going to define SUVs?

Just a few things that come to mind when you mention dropping another tax...

[SkinBasket]

Sorry to see that you frame this issue in terms of politics. Rush Limbaugh is also at his worst on this issue. Remember, he has long claimed "global warming" to be a political conspiracy, and he looks increasingly foolish. Sounds like you part ways with him on the existence of (human caused) global warming, but you've moved the conspiracy over to the consequences part.

Harlan, don't be a bitch and claim you, or anyone else, aren't approaching this discussion from a political perspective. That much is made clear by your immediate jump to Rush and conspiracy talk. This boils down to environmental policy. Policy is decided by political administrations. The environment is a political issue. The sooner you and others stop claiming some status as defenders of the earth as your moral high ground that is somehow above politics, the sooner we can actualy talk about the subject.

This thread started as a discussion of Al Gore's "movie." Are you going to take the same tack as NoMo and claim that Al Gore isn't a political figure? He was simply the best man for the job of talking over a bunch of selective statistics from junk science meant to scare the environmental circle jerk crowd into a greater hysteria? Have you listened to Al Gore? None of the things I said about him demonizing conservatives, big business, and republican administrations are off base.

Speaking of conspiracies, maybe you were also a subscriber of Hillary's "vast right wing conspiracy?"

Maybe you could clarify what you mean by claiming I've moved the conspiracy to the consequences part? What does that even mean?

There's no conspiracy here, only a bunch of democrats trying to make political hay out of demogoguery. Nothing new. It's how they seem to approach every issue these days. The world's going to end. Old people will be left without medication to die in the street. Blacks will be forced back into slavery by republicans wielding their "plantation mentality." Gays will be rounded up and held in detention centers. And the most recent addition: The US will be destroyed at the hands of terrorists because Republicans are soft on the war on terror.

[Harlan Huckleby]

However, it also cautioned that uncertainties about this conclusion remain because of the level of natural variability inherent in the climate on time scales from decades to centuries, the questionable ability of models to simulate natural variability on such long time scales.....

Doesn't sound to me like even those who contributed to the report are convinced that natural forces are insignificant.

Sounds like a damn balanced and thoughtful report, ehh?

It is possible that 50 years or 100 years from now, with more data and study, the consensus opinion will change to "global warming is most significantly due to natural causes." Right now, very few scientists expect this, and the current consensus has been reached over a 25 year period of debate and testing.

The problem (obviously) is the harm in waiting 50 or 100 years to make changes, if the current consensus is largely correct.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Regarding SUV's, I would be open to adding a tax on any vehicle that produces excessive greenhouse gases. I beleive this is practical and justified.

I knew you were a liberal all this time. First solution is to raise taxes on those vehicles--to go along with the gas tax, sin tax, inheritance tax, ...

Well, if you don't think that human-generated greenhouse gasses are any biggy for the future, then end of discussion. No need to do anything.

But just for sake of argument, lets say that it is critical (in your judgement) to reduce CO2 pollution, that the world will be a shithole for future generations if we keep on current path.

How does a conservative thinker solve the problem of heavy polluting models of cars? I think a tax on them would reduce demand, and still allow people who can afford them to buy um. You don't like this idea, fine, lets see some creativity on your part, offer an alternative.

(BTW, Do you think the government was wrong to force automaker to put catalytic converters and other pollution controls on cars in the 1970's? That made a HUGE difference, you have tried breathing in big cities before then!)

[Harlan Huckleby]

Harlan, don't be a bitch and claim you, or anyone else, aren't approaching this discussion from a political perspective. That much is made clear by your immediate jump to Rush and conspiracy talk. This boils down to environmental policy. Policy is decided by political

I mentioned Rush because he is the undisputed Champion of belittling GW as a political ploy only. He's been doing it for 15 years. Now that a consensus has emerged, he sounds foolish.

As far as me & politics, I HATE liberal vrs. conservative politics. I don't bash. I have a mixed bag of views, I am very conservative on foreign policy, liberal on most domestic issues, and I refuse to see environmental issue in liberal vrs conservative terms. I was againt Kyoto because it was unreasonable deal for U.S. for instance - does that make me a conservative? As soon as any discussion turns to Dems vrs. Repubs we enter the stupidity zone of prepackaged shallow thinking.

[Scott Campbell]

(BTW, Do you think the government was wrong to force automaker to put catalytic converters and other pollution controls on cars in the 1970's? That made a HUGE difference, you have tried breathing in big cities before then!)

If the government needs to meddle, let them stimulate progress on alternative sources of energy - solar for homes and electric for cars. Give outrageous tax breaks to those who develop the technology, and subsidize those end users who purchase the technology.

Don't penalize those who want bigger safer vehicles. I'd much rather use tax incentives to encourage more responsible behavior than tax penalties to gouge the evil gas guzzlers.