Seattle Times: "The truth about global warming"

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 for your comments, Jack. I really appreciate them.<br><br>I expect the last chapter of my book to be a real challenge. I've revised my synopsis several times, and each time I've moved farther away from politics and preaching. I may need to move farther still. I think the last chapter will be mostly about predictions for climate change in the Northwest and what they may mean for skiing from a historical perspective. As Eric_N pointed out, the fact that we skiers are having this debate is historically significant. To be honest, I wouldn't take so much interest in this thread if I wasn't trying to sort out the climate change issue so I can write about it.<br><br>To me, climate change is the "elephant in the room" which could swamp out everything else going on today in terms of it's effect on the future of Northwest skiing. I feel like I'd be negligent to ignore it.

<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.

<br><br>Fair enough. I looked at the NAS report cited in the Times article and it seems to be mostly about the uncertainties in climate science. It doesn't offer much guidance about what to do in the face of these uncertainties. On the other hand, the Joint Science Academies Statement cited by Eric_N, which was signed by Bruce Alberts, president of the NAS (and ten other leaders of international science academies), says this:<br><br>

The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.  It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.

<br><br>I agree with you that the NAS report is more tentative than the IPCC report I referenced earlier. I'm not sure what to make of the difference. One thing I noted in the NAS report was this statement:<br><br>

Part of the debate over global warming centers on disparities between the surface temperature and upper-air temperature. While the Earth's surface temperature has risen, data collected by satellites and balloon-borne instruments since 1979 indicate little if any warming of the low-to mid- troposphere.

<br><br>An article in the 8/13/2005 Seattle Times (p. A6) reported that recent analysis has eliminated these disparities. Researchers found errors in the interpretation of satellite and balloon data. After correcting for the errors, they found that the troposphere had warmed instead of cooled. A team from Lawrence Livermore lab found that the corrected temperature data agree with 19 computer climate models from around the world. <br><br>"The study is significant because it removes one of the arguments that the climate skeptics have used," said John Chiang of UC Berkeley.<br>

Actually, I enjoy TAY because I am a ski touring fanatic, and I like to read and see what is going on with other skiers. I check TAY to relax at work and home. But I am up for a discussion when I feel the need. <br><br>To get to the point, the subject of this thread, included in a book about skiing will have some impact.<br><br>In regard to climate change, I optimistically hope that it will cycle and change back to what we want to see (big snow and nice glaciers!). If the warming is human-caused, attempting to change human behavior, especially that of us hyperconsumers, is a daunting and society-changing undertaking.<br><br>Aside from that, as stated, overconsumption and waste that leads to environmental degradation is bad from many viewpoints.

Randonee - I think we may indeed have some room for common ground. I'm a big fan of public transportation, and miss it very much from my time in the Boston area. I'd happily pay more taxes to subsidize some decent public transit infrastructure, which is of course what places like Boston have done to make this possible. No free lunch, as they say.<br><br>You ask me a question: "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?" Of course! Your pal Hillary Clinton voted for the pivotal senate measure that gave GW the green light, and after the war started came and spoke at my company and defended her action very much on the basis of making the best decision you can with the information you've been given. In her case, it was based on the CIA briefings, though I wonder how she feels now given the subsequent indications that agency analysis was skewed by pressure from the white house, but in any case I think she answered your question. Me, the hopeless peacenik that I am, I was concerned about the implications of the new pre-emptive war policy on our future security as a country (mark my words, this WILL come back to haunt us in our lifetime), and I was listening to people like Blix and El Baradei and but of course no one takes them seriously now (other than the admittedly politicized Nobel Prize committe).<br><br>This discussion brings to mind George Washington's farewell address ([ usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm/url ]), in which he warned against partisanship, involvement in foreign wars, and deficit spending (particularly by avoiding said wars, which are of course expensive). I bring this up not to further the thread drift, but to bring things back to the start - there are certainly things we can do together to take care of the world. Randonee - your prescriptions are common sense and not just a Cheney-esque "sign of personal virtue," and I applaud them. I have no need to raid my republican neighbor's stash of SSRI drugs after reading your writing. And I will continue my informal poll where I ask "so why exactly DO you drive that SUV?" (not all of us liberal city types suck off you exceptionally hard workers, live in 4,000 sf houses, and drive H2s...)

My take: there's science and there's policy. I gained some understanding on this separation when taking a class on Technology Assessment from Dr Phil Bereano at the University of Washington, which at the time seemed strangely tangiential to the aims of my degree but in fact has turned out to be perhaps the one university course I've ever taken that I find myself thinking back upon ever since.<br>When there's debate about science, policy tries to determine the validity of the science and create a policy based on that. But that is not /should not be the only factor. The other factor should be, what if those that say global warming is real are right? What are the consequences? Obviously the consequences are going to be severe, and this severity needs to be at least an equal factor when it comes to thinking about policy. It's that aspect, the refusal to really visualize how bad global warming could be for the human species if it comes to pass, that really ticks me off about the current administration's stance on the problem.<br>As it stands, lobbying influence seems to be having the largest voice, not the science, not the potential severity of the scenario. Not good.

Wolfs - potential severity of impact is indeed a key point in my mind, and why this is a case crying out for some "dealing with ambiguity" rather than insisting on continuing to gather more data before acting. It's worth asking, "how would we feel if the worst predictions are true, but we had refused to act?" Thanks for articulating this point.