I just finished The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism)
This is the second book in the P.I.G. series I have read and have thoroughly enjoyed both books. This book is very well written and very easy to read. The author, Mr. Christopher C. Horner, is a Senior Fellow of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He has testified in front of the U.S. Senate regarding man-made global warming. He has given numerous addresses to various European governments and agencies. He has appeared on numerous TV news shows and has been a guest on an assortment of talk radio shows. Mr. Horner is a lawyer. However, don’t let that scare you away, and don't let that make you think any less of his arguments. His scientific discussions are clearly footnoted to an assortment of scientific works that the reader can easily find.
I really liked the way the book is laid out. There is a discussion on the political nature of the “man-made global warming movement”. There is also a scientific discussion against man-made global warming. There is an entire chapter devoted to An Inconvenient Truth as well as one devoted to the Kyoto Protocols. The book has numerous footnotes for each chapter, and a good index. This book can serve as a reference for many of the topics brought up in the typical global warming discussion.
I thought the chapters on An Inconvenient Truth and on the Kyoto Protocols were the most interesting. I waited to read the chapter on Mr. Gore’s movie until I had watched it for myself. I felt that watching the movie and then reading this chapter was a very good point-counterpoint and served to highlight both sides of the argument. The chapter on the Kyoto Protocols provided some very useful information I hadn’t seen before. For example, the chapter discusses how the United States is doing in relation to Kyoto and how the European signatories are doing. Mr. Horner also discusses the actual cost to implement Kyoto in the United States, and what the most adamant supporters of Kyoto say it will do for us. One question I have always had about Kyoto is this: If the treaty is so important to us, why didn’t the United States ratify it when Bill Clinton and Al Gore were in office? Mr. Horner covers that as well as Senate Resolution 98 which was introduced by Senators Robert Byrd (D) and Chuck Hagel (R). This senate resolution forbids the United States from being a signatory to any protocol or agreement that,”…would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.”
I would encourage anyone who is interested in the man-made global warming debate to read this book. If you enjoyed Al Gore’s movie, you should spend some time simply reading Mr. Horner’s chapter on An Inconvenient Truth. Most importantly, anyone who believes that there is a scientific consensus about man-made global warming should read this book. Regardless of your position on the debate, after reading this book you will be left with a feeling that there are a lot of unsettled questions.
50 comments:
Andy, I challenge you to ask *any* climate scientist at *any* accredited Atlanta University what they think of Horner's "book."
It's easy to bloviate on a blog about how there's there's no scientific consensus on global warming. You'll have a lot harder time with that claim if you start talking to actual scientists.
You think reducing carbon emissions is expensive? Try calculating the cost of a twenty foot sea level rise. Or the desertification of U.S. cropland.
This challenge is thrown out from time to time. It basically says, "Ignore what you read in the news and the media, ask someone at a University what they think." By the very fact that there are scientist, who are accredited, who publish questions about global warming tells us that there is no scientific consensus. If a scientist who works directly in the field says he has questions, why should I ask someone at an Atlanta University? Or is it that you presume someone at a school may be biased towards your point of view?
Not even the IPCC believes the 20 foot sea level claim.
If the National Academy of Sciences says there's consensus, then you would agree, right? And every other major scientific organization *in the world?*
But even this is stupid. The world is hotter than it has been in centuries, probably millenia, and there is no evidence of anything else heating up the planet other than CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Nothing else explains it, and we know for sure that this is what we would expect the current levels of CO2 to do to the planet.
Even *you* can do this experiment by putting extra CO2 and a light bulb in a cardboard box and then measuring temperature. CO2 traps the heat and makes it heat up faster than a box without the extra CO2.
I think you actually know this, but are just playing lapdog to your suicidal free-market idols.
You're a young guy. I'd like to plant a flag here in your conscience, and ask you to remember that you were told the truth back in 2007. Because scientists say we're all going to regret not doing more to stop global warming. Many farmers across the world, with their fields drying up, already are regretting it, along with people living near the rising seas.
How can their be consensus if there are scientist who publish papers that disagree with man made global warming?
Man isn't the only source of CO2, and CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas.
I have said time and time again, man is contributing to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. So do Moose, Cows and other animals.
My question is how much of an impact is man actually having on the environment? If the UN says that temperatures have gone up by 1 degree C in the last 100 years, how much of that is because of man? Other scientific bodies say the temp. rise over the last 100 years is closer to .4 degree C. How much of that is man? If .1 degree is C is because of us, would you spend $500 billion to try and change that?
"Farmers fields are drying up..."? The increased CO2 in the air should be helping green things. And the sea level change is very questionable, if happening at all.
I will try one more time: I don't dispute that the climate is changing. I dispute how much of a roll in that change man plays. I also dispute how much we can do to stop climate change.
Andy, do you despise truth?
Surely you don't believe that the combined fossil fuel emissions of the countries of the world are in any sense comparable to the methane released by moose. This isn't name calling, it's reality: if you believe that "moose" are comparable to all the cars and coal plants in the world, you're a fool. If you don't, then you're intentionally distorting the truth (some of us call people like that "liars").
You wrote: "CO2 in the air should be helping green things."
You actually may not know that studies are showing that increased CO2 is decreasing plants' ability to uptake water, which is leading to greater flooding. And, yes, most of the U.S. is now experiencing drought. I assume that you understand why both droughts and floods are products of global warming.
If you want to know why small-seeming temperature rises are dangerous, read what the scientists say. And $500 billion is less than we've spent on the great success in Iraq, anyway--chump change compared to how much damage climate change is doing. But many of the solutions to climate change *save* money anyway, immediately. Why be against those?
There is no question about how much carbon has increased in the atmosphere (more than any time in human history), there is no question about where it is coming from (mostly burning of fossil fuels), so *of course* there is something we can do about it--duh, stop burning the stuff that's causing it: energy efficiency and changes in our fuel sources, using existing technology.
If the U.S. had invested the total cost of the Iraq war in windpower, we could have provided 150% of total U.S. energy needs through wind power (that means not needing and shutting down *all* other energy sources, including oil, gasoline, coal, nuclear, natural gas, etc.).
Actually, man is not the primary source of CO2 on the planet. Animal life is. We do contribute our share, but CO2 as a component of the atmosphere is a natural occurrence. Moose, cows, the sea, and plant life all produce CO2 in different amounts. So, to answer your question, yes, I do believe that a Moose is comparable to a car when it comes to CO2. A research team in Norway estimates that a grown Moose, “…will burp and pass so much methane gas in the course of a yea that it amounts to 2,100 kilos of carbon dioxide emissions.” A newspaper in Norway has reported this amount of CO2 is equivalent to a car driving 13,000 kilometers. Man is not the primary producer of CO2. To say otherwise is simply wrong.
I do understand the theoretical relationship between global warming, droughts, and flooding. I also understand that there are many studies showing an increase in plant life and plant activity. As a side note, the decomposition of plant material, and the burning of forests also release CO2 into the atmosphere.
If you are saying switching light bulbs in your house will save you money immediately, then do it. If you are saying global plans promoted by assorted environmentalist will save us money immediately, you are simply wrong. Not even supporters of Kyoto claim that. The loss to our GDP is measured in billions of dollars to comply with Kyoto. I think anyone who wants to make their own life more “green” should do it. I only complain when you try to legislate that others do the same based questionable projections.
You can try to muddy the water with the Iraq war as much as you want. I am actually a fan of wind power. However, the technology simply isn’t there to use it as a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Maybe it will be one day, but it isn’t now. The same goes for solar power; it may one day be able to replace fossil fuels, but it can’t right now. The only power source that could potentially do it in the short term is nuclear power. If you want to discuss building more nuclear power plants, then I am on your side. I think we should have more nuclear power plants. Nuclear power = less air pollutants and less dependence on foreign sources of energy.
So Andy... you look at this chart and say, "yes, professor, moose and other animals explain the current anomaly."
Now wait a second...you are the one that keeps saying the scientist know what they're doing. You are the one saying we need to listen to the scientist. I have done exactly zero field work studying Moose gas. I am simply citing a scientific study. Now, because this study doesn't fit nicely into your "Man is the source of the planets destruction" you want to dismiss it as irrelevant? You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I keep saying there is too much we don't know. If scientist tell us that the gas from one adult moose over the course of a year is the same as that from a car driving 13,000 kilometers and other scientist tell us there is this huge spike in CO2 emissions (such as in the disputed hockey stick graph), then doesn't that mean there is something going on we don't know or maybe don't fully understand?
So you'd tell the professor what about the graph?
I really have to agree that it's hard for us to say definitively how much of the climate change is our fault and how much is nature running it's course.
I mean, through out the billions of years the planet's been here, the climate has changed wildly over and over again. It's naive of us to think it's always going to stay the same.
Maybe we should be spending SOME of our resources figuring out how we are going to deal with the change instead of how are we going to stop it from happening.
And, on the topic of where do greenhouse gasses come from, I'll throw out this little factoid.
Andy, I know you are no fan of the UN, but a UN report from last year said that "Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars"
The Article about the UN report is here -
http://www.un.org/apps/news/
story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global
&Cr1=environment
The problem, familyman, is that earth's climate has not changed "wildly" during human history--until now. Again, none of you science-deniers can explain the anomaly in this chart apart from human responsibility.
Seriously, let's at least get this settled: can any of you deniers give an explanation for the anomaly in the chart--apart from human responsibility?
Anonymous, you are doing a poor job of answering the challenges we put to you. As before, and as I have said every time you have shown this graph, this graph is in dispute. There are legitimate scientist who have argued that it doesn't properly take into account its own data. The are scientist who have argued that using the formula Mann used, you can put ANY data in and return the same graph. Does that sound like legitimate science to you?
Andy: link to a scientific dispute about the graph. This stuff is not in question, and is easily measurable.
Ha Ha, I am definitely not a "science denier". I love science.
I think the problem with this debate is that you are looking at the current climate change in Human terms. You may be right that the climate has not changed wildly during human history. But the Earth does not run on Human time. It runs on geologic time. The amount of time humans have been here is insignificant compared to the history of the Earth. During the history of the Earth, the climate HAS changed wildly. You can find places on Earth that are desert now but were tropical at one time and before that they were covered with ice. The climate isn't going to stay the same now just because we want it to.
That chart is not in scientific dispute. Show us a study that significantly disputes it.
anonymous - The chart may very well be right as far as the last 1000 years goes. But again, 1000 years is like a blink in terms of the age of the Earth. This is hardly the only time in Earth's history that the climate has changed.
READ THIS - I THINK THIS IS VERY INTERESTING
Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 20° C (68° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12° C (54° F). As shown on the chart below, this is comparable to the average global temperature on Earth today!
Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!
Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.
Go here to read more about it and see some graphs and charts.
There is also a good chart here that shows that we are currently experiencing one of the cooler periods in the history of Earth's climate.
HEY! What's going on? I'm on Andy's side of an argument? Quick Andy, post something about how we should send more troops to Iraq or bomb Iran or something. Life just doesn't make sense anymore!
There are a few places you can go to see the hockey stick debunked. For two quick examples, here:
First, this is the site for two Canadian researchers. I think these two were the first to debunk the hockey stick. After this, Mann didn't want to provide his data to anyone.
Second, here is a discussion on how any set of numbers put into the formula Mann used for the hockey stick will return a hockey stick, regardless of the numbers.
Anon, I hope you look at the links I provide. I meant to include this response as well:
Familyman, I think you are right on the money.
Anon, these graphs are in dispute. I have heard that the latest IPCC dumped the Hockey stick, though I don't know that for certain. Look at the links I provide above. As far as the global temperature being easy to measure, that isn't true. Take a step back and think about it: If you had to design a global temperature measuring system, how would you do it? Would you include stations equally dispersed on land and sea? Who would look at your data in third world countries and in the wild? Did you know that many of the stations used to get a global average fell into disrepair in the 1990's? This corresponded with a sharp increase in recorded temperature as we suddenly had less monitoring stations.
Take a look at the links I gave and let me know what you think.
Andy, just a little semantics here.
You say, "How can their be consensus if there are scientist who publish papers that disagree with man made global warming?"
Consensus simply means a majority opinion. So there can be consensus and still be some disagreement.
A question for familyman:
You seem to be saying: hey, the earth had climate changes before humans were around--why worry about the current changes? (do I have you right on that?)
If so, then:
Do pre-human asteroid strikes ethically relativize random missile strikes? They happened before...
I'll get to Andy's post in a bit--but this seemed most odd.
Anonymous - I'm not saying don't worry about climate change. I'm saying that if we determine that climate change is inevitable, (and the long term historical record seems to indicate that it is) then maybe it makes more sense to allocate our resources towards dealing with the changes instead of allocating our resources towards trying to stop the changes.
For example, I've heard it said that the poorest people on earth are going to be the ones that suffer the most from the coming climate change. So instead of trying to stop the climate from changing, maybe we put our resources to trying to lift those people out of poverty. To me, that seems like a better use of resources short term and long term.
I'm don't understand the second part of your post about missiles and asteroids.
Familyman: ok I think I understand your point: we can't stop climate change, so we should try to adapt.
I would be in favor of that if the premise were true. However, stopping climate change (which is doable with current technology), is *significantly* less expensive and traumatic than trying to adapt to it. You can read about that here.
My admittedly weird point about the asteroids was this. You seemed to me to be saying that *human- caused* climate change was ok because there was *pre-human* climate change. So I was trying to point out that the same logic could excuse human-caused missile bombardments because there had been pre-human missile (asteroid) bombardments. The point: just because something happened in the (pre-human) past doesn't mean that humans should choose to do it. In fact, choosing to do so might be really stupid, "unnatural," and suicidal.
Andy, thanks for the good scientific link (your second one was a blog). The scientific link addressed some questions about parts of one study of global climate, and that is noteworthy. It is also noteworthy that the National Academy of Sciences still calls the Mann study "essentially correct." However, for the sake of argument, let's dismiss Mann's study.
But even if we dismiss Mann's study, the graph I cited still stands, because the graph I displayed draws on what many studies have found--not simply the one by Mann. Even *you* have granted that global temperature has risen about 1 degree over the last century. The graph is noncontroversial science and the same basic information can be found at the IPCC (yes, they did keep the "hockey stick," contrary to the WSJ's op-ed claim), NASA, and NOAA.
Bottom line: While you identified some questions about one study that supported the graph, the graphs themselves are not in dispute. My basic challenge stands: can you point to any explanation for the anomaly in the graph other than human responsibility?
The Stern Report, which you site, is has been hotly contested by many including the IPCC. I haven't read the report, and don't want to give off the impression that I have. I did read the summary that you linked to.
Most estimates that I have seen show complying with Kyoto would be very expensive. I have seen the cost as high as 20% of the GDP. I haven't done the numbers, so I don't know for sure. However, this is the reason that I argue we need to study global warming more. We don't know for sure we can do anything to reduce global warming without resorting to catastrophic measures. Before we implement plans that could be incredibly expensive, we need to be sure there is even a problem. Then we need to decide if we can affect it, and if we should affect it.
Andy, I'd be happy to talk about solutions (Stern Review, etc.) if you acknowledge that there's a problem to solve.
I've had too many discussions with right-wingers about climate change solutions that end with y'all saying "but we don't know if there's a problem to solve!"
So until you show that you're actually interested in solving a real problem (the one that's shown in that chart above), I'm not going to debate solutions with you. There's no sense in discussing it if, in the end, you're going to argue that there's nothing to solve.
So it's up to you. Climate scientists say that global warming is the greatest long term threat facing the human species. They say we've got a matter of months or maybe a few years to drastically change our policies and habits before we drive nails into some pretty significant coffins. Do *you* think we have a problem? Or are you in favor of "wait and see"--and taking the risk of passing some points of no return?
I don't know that there is a problem to solve. I think that is a straight forward answer. I do believe there is global warming. I don't know what component of global warming man causes. I also don't know that we could "fix" global warming even if we wanted too.
Don't misunderstand my position. Because I don't believe global warming is the greatest challenge facing our planet doesn't mean I think we should pollute till our little hearts are content. I do believe in conservation. I recycle, my wife and I car pool when we can, and I don't believe industry should be allowed to dump whatever they want wherever they want.
However, I don't believe that mankind is destroying the planet and in the next three years the Earth will destroy us.
Kram sent me a link that I thought I would share with everyone. This is from Earth Times. Org. A quick quote from the beginning of the article:
“A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance.”
Enjoy the rest of the read.
Andy, that link is a press release advertising a book by some guys from an Exxon funded foundation--not that there's anything wrong with that. I'm sure they're objective.
They boast that their book cites studies "published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters" [yes, the double "such" is in the press release]. We don't know *what* studies or *which* authors they're talking about, b/c they don't tell you unless you buy their book.
(Sometimes oil-funded "think tanks" will cite real science articles and radically distort the findings to claim that the research says something that it doesn't. And then the scientists have to correct them.)
But here's a challenge to anyone who believes there's real controversy in the scientific community: by all means go and read the journals these guys mention ("Science," "Nature," and "Geophysical Review Letters"). I'm sure that you'll find that the debate is over: global warming is radically effecting the earth now, humans are responsible, and the longer we wait to solve it, the worse and more expensive it will get.
I can tell you this, because I read those journals, which are written by *scientists,* not Exxon funded PR flacks. Don't take Exxon's word on this--and don't take my word. Go read them yourself. You'll find all the information you need to convince you that global warming is real, serious, and able to be solved.
Andy, you've got to check this out.
Turns out your "climate expert" Dennis Avery who wrote the book you just cited was recently an "organic food expert" who got busted for making stuff up and claiming it was legit science. The actual scientists called him on it. You can read the story here.
But I'm sure this time he's right on the money.
Anon, I like how you throw Exxon around like it is the devil. Did you know that Enron and BP have both been huge contributors to the Global Warming machine? Enron was working heavily with Gore and Clinton on how best to market global warming.
As I have said before, if the science is legitimate science that can be reviewed by peers, why does it matter where the money came from? Regardless of the motivation of the researcher, if their data and sources are transparent, others can judge it for themselves. That is a test your beloved hockey stick fails.
Andy. You posted a story about an exposed con artist who has been in fact caught distorting real science. Why aren't you apologizing?
Anon, I went to your like and read it, and did some research on the organic food info from that article. I don’t know anything (or care) about organic food, so the article looks accurate to me. I haven’t seen a response from Dennis Avery other than the one quoted in your source, so I don’t know what his side is. So, while I think you have gone overboard by calling him a con artist, I would agree that his information would be taken with a grain of salt.
However, as you so fondly pointed out , the article I sited was a press release for an upcoming book. This book is co-authored by Dennis Avery, and S. Fred Singer. He is a professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, a research professor at George Mason University, and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. He appears to be a reputable individual , a knowledgeable climatologist, and a professor at the University of Virginia. As you and other “man-made global warming” supporters are constantly trying to challenge me to seek out a professor and ask their opinion on global warming, I assume Singer’s opinion in this book will count.
So if one of the authors (Avery) got busted lying about scientific research, maybe it's ok because the other author (Singer) is a real scientist?
Uh-oh.
Singer "scientifically" trumpeted the claim that second-hand tobacco smoke is not a threat to human health. I am sure that had nothing to do with the money he was receiving from tobacco companies.
As recently as 2003, Singer was claiming that the earth was not warming. I'm sure that has nothing to do with the paychecks he gets from oil companies.
Still trust Singer?
I'm sure you trust him so much that you'll start smoking around your family, because Dr. Singer says the health threat is made up.
Now Anon, haven't you accused me of changing the topics before?
Singer has had more than one opinion that differed from the mainstream. He has questioned the tie between second hand smoke and lung cancer. He is not the only one that has questioned it. I will be the first to admit they are in the vast minority.
However, the book that Singer and Avery are releasing argues that there is not consensus around global warming. I have discussed other scientist and articles on this site that don't agree with global warming.
I have provided you with people who disagree with global warming. Your way to attack them, is to ignore their science and attack them personally. I cam play that game all day long with Mr. Gore and some of the other proponents of global warming. However, I prefer to point out how their science is wrong.
Holy Cow! I point out that your two scientists lied about scientific questions, and you call that a personal attack that ignores science? I'm sure that any university tenure committee would differ with you!
That's not changing the subject. You linked to a book by scientists who get paychecks from the oil industry. I pointed out that they've lied for other companies before on other "scientific" issues--including organic food and tobacco smoke. Surely you recognize that's relevant in evaluating their reliability.
If you don't want to hear challenges to the intellectual integrity of your sources, you could start by finding some who aren't liars.
I do call it a personal attack. You aren't even looking at the material, you are slandering the individuals.
I don't understand the Avery issue with the organic foods. The 2nd hand smoke is a legitimate question. I have always heard it is bad for you, but looking into this, there are apparently quite a number of scientist who question the original studies. No one is saying smoking is good for you. Scientist are questioning if the original studies were done right. I don't know if they were or not, and since I don't smoke, I don't really care.
Assuming you are the same Anon that has posted repeatedly on here, you have defended global warming as consensus. You have had some pretty bad things to say about those of us who don't believe there is a consensus. When I point out a book that is coming out that is going to site works that disagree with global warming, you don't make a comment on that, and instead attack the credibility of the authors.
The authors you cite have been caught committing intellectual fraud. That's serious, Andy.
Don't you think that educated people would think Avery might do that again? Here's the straight dope, from a reporter trying to set the record straight:
Avery published an article entitled "The Hidden Dangers in Organic Food" in the Fall, 1998, issue of American Outlook, a quarterly publication published by the Hudson Institute. Avery's article began, "According to recent data compiled by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), people who eat organic and natural' foods are eight times as likely as the rest of the population to be attacked by a deadly new strain of E. coli bacteria (0157:H7)."
A statement from Dr. Mitchell Cohen of the CDC last month states that: "...The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has not conducted any study that compares or quantitates the specific risk for infection with Escherichia coli 0157:H7 and eating either conventionally grown or organic/natural foods. CDC recommends that growers practice safe and hygienic methods for producing food products, and that consumers, likewise, practice food safety within their homes (e.g., thoroughly washing fruits and vegetables). These recommendations apply to both conventionally grown and organic foods."
Sharon Hoskins of the CDC told Alternative Agriculture News that the CDC did not have any such research currently in the works, nor was it planning to conduct any in the future because such research was "not warranted." "We are not planning any research on organic and natural foods," she said. She also said, "We have tried to contact the magazine and have never been able to speak with anyone at American Outlook, including the editor. There has been no response."
Is reporting the facts about these guys really *slander*?
I actually don't have a problem with what you have said about Avery. As i said, I don't know about he organic food deal, I haven't looked further than your link.
My problem is with Singer. I feel you have mischaracterized his argument. I haven't seen anywhere that he encourages people to smoke, which is what you hint at. The quotes I am finding from him question the studies.
It also bothers me when people want to discount studies because they may have been paid for by the Evil Oil Companies or by Big Tobacco. Many will say, “Those studies can’t be trusted because of their source.” That standard is silly at best. If we were to apply that standard uniformly, there would be very little science about global warming. All of the studies that are funded by government money to “study the problem of global warming” could also be labeled as biased. If those studies report that there is no global warming problem, where does all the money go that the U.S. government, the EU, and the United Nations are currently spending studying global warming? It goes to studying Malaria, or Aids, or any number of other things these “climatologist” have no expertise in.
Government should but funds into research, but so should the private sector. And the private sector is better equipped in some cases to perform these studies. Simply because of where the money comes from shouldn’t invalidate the study. Science should invalidate the study.
And I think this is my first 40 comment post.
While Andy has been writing about how expensive it is to solve global warming, global warming has been bankrupting farmers in his own backyard.
Have you seen the latest prices on milk? Did you know the price of corn is going up because more of it is being made into ethanol? There is something that isn't even a fix for "global warming" and it already is costing us money.
If you are the same anon who claims to be so concerned about the voices of the poor and future generations, who do you think is being hit the hardest by an increase in milk prices?
Andy, you're not making any sense. You're citing price increases in milk and corn as evidence of how expensive it is to solve global warming even though you admit that milk and corn prices have nothing to do with solving global warming.
Of course, you don't even acknowledge the basic point: global warming is frying your region's farms and costing farmers and consumers, including, yes, the poor. But apparently you're more worried that Exxon might lose money if we solve global warming. Exxon's laughing all the way to the bank, while your region's farmers get taken to the bank.
My argument is that corn prices have increased due the production of ethanol for cars. This has been billed as a cleaner fuel. That has been disputed. However, this "cleaner fuel" has caused prices in other areas to increase, without doing anything for the environment.
It is the same as Kyoto....huge price tag, and nothing for the environment.
Most environmentalists (including me) think corn-based ethanol is a joke--a bone thrown to the Iowa primaries and to the farm lobby. It's wasteful and inefficient and pollutes anyway.
Read Lester Brown's Plan B 2.0 for more details about what real solutions (not fake ones) look like.
But Andy is still ignoring the farms that are tanking from the heat.
Nevertheless, Andy, on the bright side: glad you've seen through the ethanol hype.
Finally finished reading all these comments! What a fun little argument. Andy, you are not ignorant for being skeptical, it's the right thing to do. Divided scientists and iffy information leave it up to us to form our own decisions - and I agree legislation in this instance is overreaching.
SGS
What's "iffy," SGS? Are you suggesting that the earth is *not* heating up? Are you suggesting that there is some other explanation for the heating than human-induced greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane? Do you think the *current* as well as the projected increases in warming are "iffy" in terms of how serious they are?
I challenge you to say that any of those three basic areas is "iffy."
You say, "How can their be consensus if there are scientist who publish papers that disagree with man made global warming?"
Got a laugh out of that one. Those scientists are working for lobbyist think tank groups. They are being paid only for an outcome that goes against the consensus...which is that global warming is real. I find it ironic that you put any faith in scientists that would be out of job if their study did not conclude as it did. Furthermore, their studies ONLY appear in the media so of course that is where they get coverage. They do NOT submit their findings to peer reviewed scientific journals, instead they go direct to the papers...sounds very trustworthy doesn't it?
What would you say of studies commissioned by universities, the U.S. government, or the United Nations? Many of those would loose funding if they suddenly reported there was no global warming. Should we discredit all of those studies as well?
Twas said on the 6th of September, " It's hotter now than it has been in centuries, maybe even millenia...," Just thought I'd point out that the Earth's temperatures and climates bounce up and come down, over and over throughout history. Sure it's hotter than it has been in centuries, we went through a Little Ice Age in the 1500's or so, what do you think the Dark ages were? They were a period of world temperatures dropping, almost unnoticeably, and then wham, they dropped way down for a couple hundred years. We're just coming back up now. I think we'll go through a really warm spell for a long time, things will change again, but "Mother Nature" will bring things back around again and we'll go back in the other direction. Read a good geological history book.
Post a Comment