Seattle Times: "The truth about global warming"

I dunno about that Rux, smells like BS to me.<br><br>I'm not sure what to think about this global warming business. Temperatures are rising, you can't argue about that. And it seems that a lot of scientists are pretty confident about the anthropogenic climate change theory.<br><br>But from what I hear from within the scientific community, this area of research has become politicized to an unprecedented degree, and the conclusions drawn are not necessarily accurate.<br><br>Of course, if we can't believe the climatologists, why believe the physicists, or the chemists, or anybody? <br><br>So I'm not sure what to believe. <br><br>In general, I'd say we as human beings should strive to affect our environment as little as possible, so whether climate change is anthropogenic or not, we should reduce our impacts. But our culture will not change vis a vis pollution until economic factors kick in (ie oil becomes too expensive).

I dunno about that Rux, smells like BS to me.<br><br>I'm not sure what to think about this global warming business. Temperatures are rising, you can't argue about that. And it seems that a lot of scientists are pretty confident about the anthropogenic climate change theory.<br><br>But from what I hear from within the scientific community, this area of research has become politicized to an unprecedented degree, and the conclusions drawn are not necessarily accurate.<br><br>Of course, if we can't believe the climatologists, why believe the physicists, or the chemists, or anybody? <br><br>So I'm not sure what to believe. <br><br>In general, I'd say we as human beings should strive to affect our environment as little as possible, so whether climate change is anthropogenic or not, we should reduce our impacts. But our culture will not change vis a vis pollution until economic factors kick in (ie oil becomes too expensive).

<br><br>I don't believe there are many folks who would disagree that there is climate change. The main differences is the 'cause' of climate change where the left says its caused by man and the right says its a natural phenomenon that can't be altered. The earth has been 'global warming' since the end of the last ice age, well before the SUV was around. My personal belief (and I am far from a professional scientist) is the climate changes are caused more from Sun effects on the earth....but that's just me and I am not going to post a thousand links to try and back it up...<br><br>Lowell, I really liked what you've posted as far as your book goes, all except that last chapter. Ski history is a subject I enjoy learning about, especially locally. To have the book end with global warming preaching really kills it for me. Don't take this personal, I'm just trying to add some input and you can take it, or leave it. I'll purchase your book with or w/out that part but I would rather have it be just history without the politics.<br><br>Thanks,....

I have kept the following statement on this subject bookmarked due to the combination of succinct content, the source, and list of cosigners. <br><br> nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

Face value or the sky is falling - pls appropriate us money now or ...?

Regardless of the truth on warming its debate appears to be a part of the current NW ski history in the making.

The point about Greenland a while back is a topic that I find interesting. From what I have read casually, within historical time there was a significant climate change. Irish Christian monks colonized the Greenland coast, I try to recall, I think before the 10th century. There was some agriculture and a few small settlements. Then by the 11th century (if I recall correctly) there was a cooling trend that caused the advance of glaciers, which wiped out the colonies. Concurrent to this, I understand that the climate changed in England as well. Apparently, during a similar historical period, at one point grapes were grown in England. After the cooling climate change, grapes were no longer grown in England. These topics may be relevant because they illustrate climate change that occurred over a thousand years ago, but within an historical time.<br><br>Even though I may side with many conservative views, I think that conspicuous consumption is pervasive in the US and is foolish. Conspicuous consumption certainly impacts the environment. From the civil liberties point of view, I have trouble saying, for example, that anyone cannot use their huge 4WD SUV as personal transportation. However, there are arguments that may gain validity over time to limit some of this. I am amazed when I drive into the Seattle area during my 2-3 trips there per year, at the conspicuous consumption. Examples include single drivers, or two or three passengers, in huge, as large as 9 passenger, 4WD SUVs (since someone may ask, I usually drive a car- 2WD and &gt; 30 mpg, even though I live where there is snow in winter. I even use my car to go skiing by using studded tires- no problem). I find it further amusing, since I live in a place where most of us get mud and dust on our rigs regularly, that the trail-worthy huge SUVs that I often see in Seattle do not even have a speck of dirt in the wheel well- perhaps these SUVs are used for commuting, driving to the mall, school, for status. One would wonder when listening to the arguments if only conservatives, Republicans, and those with connections to oil companies drive such vehicles (not). <br><br>Public transportation is another weakness in the US, and is clearly deficient in the Seattle area, not to mention the rest of the state! If more busses ran by my skitours from major highways so that I could utilize them, I would. I would prefer to invest in my ski gear and other stuff for the family by reducing personal transportation costs, and it would reduce consumption and pollution. Another example is light rail in populated areas. St. Louis has an excellent light rail system that is inexpensive and useful, in my personal experience, as does Portland. One of the cool things that I noted in the Alpine countries was the complete system of public transportation (probably in place not because of environmental planning or concern, but because of space to drive and park cars and affordability since taxation is repressive and also most are equally poor there in the middle class). Anyway, the trains in Europe are great, as we all know, and in Switzerland I thought the Post bus that went to many high small villages with mail and passengers was great, and would reduce consumption of resources.<br><br> Other conspicuous consumption that I take issue with is the general consumerist consumption and the assumed need and right to have such large, new, habitat-destroying homes and yards (the three of us are quite happy living in 1007 sq. ft.).<br><br>Very good points were made about dealing with ambiguity and analysis paralysis. Judgement and appropriate thought is necesssary. So, when bringing this point, would this infer that you or some liberals would approve of how President Bush and the US gov't. dealt with the ambiguity in Iraq and did not falter because of analysis paralysis? <br><br>As I state below, I referenced the information about global warming from the Seattle Times "good journalism." It is quite unambiguous that there is uncertainty about human causation, as it is clear that there is a potential serious problem. Currently, this nation has not yet acted in certain tangible ways to reverse global warming because of the ambiguity that reasonably requires further vigilence and study.<br><br>The quotes that I included are from the link (one click) cited in the Seattle Times article. I simply read the summary there from the National Academy of Sciences, then copied parts ot it. That probably makes it subject to the old 'out of context' argument. Not so, it is pretty explicit. I guess there are other ways to reference this information, so I guess that the other argument is that your technical prowess is larger than my technical prowess.<br><br>Clearly I am a conservative in many of my views, but I have some ideas that may actually coincide with those of liberal envrionment-worshipping persons. So, liberals, take one of your favorite benzodiazepine medications (e.g. Ativan) or a hit from your favorite "not-really-so-bad" illegal substance during one of the handy musical interludes on NPR and try to consider the comments of someone who also has a different view of some important topics.<br><br>I thought that I was paraphrasing and exaggerating in order to make a point. I see previously one personal reference. Dude, if my words were 'hurling contempt' I would have to wonder if you have had a serious discussion with anyone outside of liberal Seattle or outside of your syncophant groupies since after kindergarten. I am quite certain that if I wanted to 'hurl contempt' it would be pretty clear. Perhaps you could entitle the thread as "for like-minded liberal environmentalist syncophant comment ONLY." It is not clear whether or not you wish a discussion or whether you wish to have validation, hand-holding, and a group singing of kum bye ah (yes, personal reference was returned).

As someone who bikes alot, the Global Warming debate seems fairly academic and almost irrelevant to the poisoning of the environment in general. It seems that the health costs of pollution are almost always discounted, especially non-point source air pollution.<br><br>To me, reducing emissions is about a heck of a lot more than just global heat. Just try sitting on a bike in traffic for a few days.

I found an interesting site the counters the assumption of global warming.  <br><br>.....<br> www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm <br>.....<br><br>Here is an astounding conclusion that this group has on the topic:<br><br>..... Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution. ...." <br>

<br><br>Thanks Rux. That is an interesting site. I did a search on sourcewatch.org, and found an entry about the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and their 1998 Oregon Petition:<br><br> www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oreg..._The_Oregon_Petition

I suspect that sourcewatch.org would be considered left-leaning by some. I don't know much about them. But here is an excerpt from their report about this petition:

The NAS [National Academy of Sciences] issued an unusually blunt formal response to the petition drive. "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal," it stated in a news release. "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." In fact, it pointed out, its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."<br>

<br><br>And a few paragraphs down:<br><br>

When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names.

<br>