Seattle Times: "The truth about global warming"

figure 1<br><br> data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

Nice discussion everyone, very interesting. Thanks.<br><br>Just imagine (sounds very lib of me) if instead of selling all of the west slope old growth obtained by Weyerhauser in 1904 for $4/ acre, a two mile swath to the Cascade Crest and beyone was kept intact. Just imagine if in 1950 logging on USFS land had been managed with little waste, and truly at a sustainable rate. If such management, easy to discuss in hindsight, had occurred, imagine what we would have- more intact and accessible tracts of old growth timber and a viable, productive timber industry. The cost of lumber in the 50's and 60's would have been higher, perhaps. From this perspective, one must agree that prudent management of greenhouse gasses is important.<br><br>The argument lies in defining that prudent management. China and SE Asia put up plenty of greenhouse gasses. The US could punish itself to reduce greenhouse gasses to the point of impoverishing its citizens, but China and the developing world would just take up the slack in the production of greenhouse gasses. So then what? Shall we invade other countries to force good environmental stewardship? In my view, many in this country lack the oysters to kill the bad guys who would kill us, forget enforcing environmental stewardship.<br><br>One hope is the potential development of alternative energy that is cheaper than gas (/diesel/ av fuel). The current Administration just committed money to develop hydrogen fuel for transportation. This was announced right after W told GM to suck it up and produce a better product, there will be no gov't. bailout. I see this as an exciting prospect. One can hope that this will force synthesis of a solution that will help the problem. There exists now the common technology to reduce our overall use of fossil fuels. I drive a Chevy Impala, a relatively large and roomy car, runs very well, rated 32 mpg/ hwy- unusual for any but small cars in the US, and unheard of as far as SUVs are concerned. I am optimistic that with a little nudge, better technology will quickly evolve that greatly reduces consumption of fossil fuels. <br><br>In conclusion, I would apply the concept of prudent measures and watchful waiting in regard to the question of human-caused global warming. I do read the arguments about this issue and feel that the popular conclusion is a bit of a stretch. There are numerous examples of what was viewed as solid science in many fields in the past that has turned out to be incorrect. <br><br>

There are numerous examples of what was viewed as solid science in many fields in the past that has turned out to be incorrect. <br><br>

<br><br>Just to clarify: I did not intend to imply that predictions of the effects of global climate change were solid science. What I wrote was that the fundamental science on which these predictions are based is solid (e.g. fluid mechanics, etc). There is certainly great uncertainty in predicting climate change (a problem of applying the underlying science to a very complex problem), and it may very well turn out that the atmosphere adjusts to increased CO2 and the resulting average temperature increase in a way that is far less catastrophic than indicated by many of the hyperbolic reports in the mainstream media.<br><br>On another note, as someone who used to work as a development engineer at a fuel cell company, I'm not holding my breath waiting for a technological fix to this problem. More money from the government is not going to accelerate things much and mostly serves as a way for the Bush administration to claim it is working on the problem. Several fuel cell companies have already burned through billions of dollars of Wall Street money trying to realize the dream of hydrogen fueled cars. <br><br>This is a political and economic problem much more so than a technological problem. It seems readily apparent to me that the Earth's resources will not support a future in which developing nations can raise their standard of living (and accompanying resource consumption/waste production) to that of Japan, Western Europe, Australia, Canada and the US. Something has got to give. Hopefully it will happen peacefully. Probably it will require a massive catastrophe before governments will act in real substantive ways.<br><br>In the meantime, I'll be trying to minimize my own consumption/waste. Oh! and skiing as much as possible when Cascade freezing levels are at 1000 feet

I find this thread interesting as much as a social phenomenon as a discussion of the issue. Check out this intriguing article:<br> Democrats and Republicans alike are adept at making decisions without letting the facts get in the way, a new study shows. <br><br>How much of this phenomenon applies to how we each read this thread, and more importantly how we view the question of human-caused global warming? E.g. whether we are more prone to listen to the main herd of scientists, or the potential few Galileos among their midst (or even best-selling fiction writers)? Could this possibly relate at all to whether we are more prone to see a need to regulate human activity to protect the enviroment, or more apt to bristle at the suggestion of such regulation? Will this in turn impact whether we are more prone to say "it's not proven, so let's tread carefully and not bust the economy" versus "it has the weight of scientific opinion behind it and potential downside is horrible so let's take action before it's too late?" And thus, how much of this sort of thread is truly enlightening versus plain old catharsis? I suspect more of the latter (not to say the latter is not worthwhile, just calling a spade a spade). Not to say people aren't thinking, just that we all tend to filter a lot on polarizing topics such as this one, and that directs what we think toward familiar paths (I certainly sense this in myself - anyone else in that camp? awareness is the first step...).<br><br>Rando - I respect your various calls on TAY for reducing name calling. Mutual respect is a good thing. I've seen the name-calling cut both ways (left and right), even just in the past few days (I think "lib-enviro" may be even border on "name-calling" though it's not one of the examples I was thinking of). It's tempting, but disrespectful. I appreciate that you generally work to keep the discussion at a meaningful level. We don't need to paint people into stereotypes nor demean them to make points.<br><br>On a slightly meatier note, I'm not quite sure how this issue cuts along the rural/urban divide. Do you think that government regulation of greenhouse gases would impact rural areas more than urban? Or is it more that you suspect that public opinion splits along those lines? Or both?

Yes, yes.<br><br>The US is so wealthy that we piss away huge sums of wealth chasing foolishness. It concerns me that we must not piss away our wealth. We need to balance this against good stewardship.<br><br>Also, like regressive taxation, the cost of environmental regulation most affects those in the lower income brackets.

Plenty of folks in lower income brackets in urban areas, if that's what you were getting at there. Though I'd be curious to see the economic analysis that leads to that conclusion on economic impact. If it's that any hit to those folks is a harder hit than to those in higher income brackets, that's one thing. If it's that more absolute dollars are lost by those at the lower income levels, I'm raising a skeptical eyebrow until seeing some a numbers-based analysis. There are lots of corporate profits at stake here, which is part of why you see a lot of corporate lobbying against taking action here, e.g. by auto mfrs on fuel economy (and lots of spin on why this will "hurt the little guy"). I'm not anti-corporate, quite the contrary, but just a realist who sees how the profit pie gets divided.