The Environment

[margrace]

Jdobbin, its like the cigaret lobby, smokers were so against the fact that it was killing people and did not want to admit they might be wrong, but finally commen sense prevailed. When one is surrounded by asthmatics and sees what the bad air does to them it kinda hit home.

[noahbody]

It isn't unlike those who denied the effects of smoking. Coincidently, they are the ones who are often at the forefront of the global warming denial.

What it mirrors is the ice age scare from about 40 years ago.

[jdobbin]

What it mirrors is the ice age scare from about 40 years ago.

Which most scientists reserved judgment on or presented a case in journals that they found no evidence of it. There certainly wasn't the large consensus of scientists advocating this position.

The right wing always tries to make this case and forgets that scientists were already presenting material that questioned that belief.

[M.Dancer]

The right wing always tries to make this case and forgets that scientists were already presenting material that questioned that belief.

Just like now?

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

[noahbody]

The right wing always tries to make this case and forgets that scientists were already presenting material that questioned that belief.

I don't see it as a right wing/left wing issue. I see it as a rational/emotional issue. You might see it this way too, if you weren't so emotional.

[jdobbin]

I don't see it as a right wing/left wing issue. I see it as a rational/emotional issue. You might see it this way too, if you weren't so emotional.

Rationally then, I usually go with the consensus of scientists. It is the people against that consensus who often act emotionally here on these boards.

It is generally those on the right wing or on right wing policy forums who dismiss global warming. I didn't make that up. It's just the way it is.

[Keepitsimple]

Rationally then, I usually go with the consensus of scientists. It is the people against that consensus who often act emotionally here on these boards.

It is generally those on the right wing or on right wing policy forums who dismiss global warming. I didn't make that up. It's just the way it is.

We've been around this block many times. Consensus means that some people are for and some are against but discussions have led to some middle ground or agreement on basic facts. That's not science.

[jdobbin]

We've been around this block many times. Consensus means that some people are for and some are against but discussions have led to some middle ground or agreement on basic facts. That's not science.

The majority of scientists in climate research support the science that the acceleration in global warming is man-made.

The same people and organizations that said there was not enough and still not enough evidence of the hazards of smoking are usually involved in global warming denial. Those groups are often funded by right wing think tanks and institutes.

In this forum, the only ones who don't believe global warming is happening or who believe it is a hoax are supporters of the Conservative party.

Edited February 22, 2008 by jdobbin

[Keepitsimple]

The majority of scientists in climate research support the science that the acceleration in global warming is man-made.

The same people and organizations that said there was not enough and still not enough evidence of the hazards of smoking are usually involved in global warming denial. Those groups are often funded by right wing think tanks and institutes.

In this forum, the only ones who don't believe global warming is happening or who believe it is a hoax are supporters of the Conservative party.

Two points Dobbin:

The majority of scientists in climate research support the science that the acceleration in global warming is man-made.

I guess this means that you agree that there is a minority who do not support it...and that's all I am saying - that's what a consensus is. The minority could be 20% or 30% or even 49% - doubtful for sure but there is not unanimity.

In this forum, the only ones who don't believe global warming is happening or who believe it is a hoax are supporters of the Conservative party.

That's really not a very smart comment. Your comments continually come off as Binary - either you believe in Global Warming and that it is mainly caused by human activity - or you are a denier. The truth is that many Conservatives (and non-conservatives) believe that Climate Change is occurring and that human activity is playing a part - but we tend to think that it's not the major factor or we believe the jury is still out. These people are not deniers. As someone else previously said, it's rational versus emotional.

[Slim MacSquinty]

Unfortunately science has become politics and money seems to be the motivation. In the million odd years of earth history it seems to me that a couple of hundred years of climate data is a pimple on an elephant. I understand that Mars is also getting warmer and to the best of my knowledge nobody's mining coal there.

On the other hand pumping all this s*it into the air is probably not good for us and a reasoned approach to reducing emisions is bound to be good, I'm just not willing to be subjegated to a third world country to be a planet do gooder, and raising or creating new taxes has in my lifetime not resolved a single problem.

[jdobbin]

Two points Dobbin:

I guess this means that you agree that there is a minority who do not support it...and that's all I am saying - that's what a consensus is. The minority could be 20% or 30% or even 49% - doubtful for sure but there is not unanimity.

I've never seen what the percentage is. I do know that I've seen very few actual working scientists who don't believe global warming.

There are a few who have interesting work in progress but it is like waiting for complete certainty on the impact of smoking. If 80% of researchers in the 1960s said there was a link to many diseases and 20% said there was not or there was no way to tell, why would you do nothing to mitigate the possible impact?

That's really not a very smart comment. Your comments continually come off as Binary - either you believe in Global Warming and that it is mainly caused by human activity - or you are a denier. The truth is that many Conservatives (and non-conservatives) believe that Climate Change is occurring and that human activity is playing a part - but we tend to think that it's not the major factor or we believe the jury is still out. These people are not deniers. As someone else previously said, it's rational versus emotional.

Read my smoking comments above.

I am basing my comments on many Conservative supporter here who say a number of things:

a) Global warming isn't happening.

b ) Global warming is a hoax.

c) Global warming might not be bad.

d) Global warming science is wrong.

d) Global warming isn't happening because we are actually cooling.

e) Canada can't really have an impact.

f) Fighting global warming will make Canada poor.

There are a lot of other comments but they generally are right wing supporters. You'll have to show me the non-Conservatives who don't believe what the scientists are saying on global warming. I can't recall any.

The Tory government didn't believe in global warming when they were elected. It is hard to believe that awarding them a majority would not see them revert to that view because that is what many of their supporters believe.

Edited February 22, 2008 by jdobbin

[noahbody]

c) Global warming might not be bad.

Gore thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book Earth in the Balance, published in 1992. Gore's warmth for Dr. Revelle cooled, however, when it became clear that he had misunderstood his former professor: Although Dr. Revelle recognized potential harm from global warming, he also saw potential benefits and was by no means alarmed, as seen in this 1984 interview in Omni magazine: Omni: A problem that has occupied your attention for many years is the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, which could cause the earth's climate to become warmer. Is this actually happening? Revelle I estimate that the total increase [in CO2] over the past hundred years has been about 21%. But whether the increase will lead to a significant rise in global temperature, we can't absolutely say. Omni: What will the warming of the earth mean to us? Revelle There may be lots of effects. Increased CO2 in the air acts like a fertilizer for plants ... you get more plant growth. Increasing CO2 levels also affect water transpiration, causing plants to close their pores and sweat less. That means plants will be able to grow in drier climates. Omni: Does the increase in CO2 have anything to do with people saying the weather is getting worse? Revelle People are always saying the weather's getting worse. Actually, the CO2 increase is predicted to temper weather extremes ... .

http://www.financialpost.com/analysis/colu...26e&k=86612

Being that he was the "grandfather of the greenhouse effect" and Gore's mentor, I'd assume Dr. Revelle was on the left.

e) Canada can't really have an impact.

You dispute that?

f) Fighting global warming will make Canada poor.

If the world switches energy sources, how many have 'have provinces' do you think Canada will have?

[runningdog]

hope this fits into this thread...

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/02/22/...servatives.html

just one more example of Harper leading down the garden path. It'll be a good thing for the world when he and the rest of the reformaCONS leave Ottawa.

[jdobbin]

http://www.financialpost.com/analysis/colu...26e&k=86612

Being that he was the "grandfather of the greenhouse effect" and Gore's mentor, I'd assume Dr. Revelle was on the left.

As Solomon points out, Revelle died in 1992. He speculated about what some of the potential benefits of global warming might be and advocated more research on the subject. However, he made clear throughout his life what the greenhouse effect would be globally and it wasn't a net benefit.

The interview you point out was in 1984. Solomon wonders what Revelle's thoughts would be today. Indeed, if he were alive today, he might be even a larger advocate of doing something than Gore is.

You dispute that?

Yes. The technology and expertise that Canada could gain from acting now could have a major impact around the world. And while our overall share of greenhouse gas is small worldwide, it is higher per capita than many nations.

If the world switches energy sources, how many have 'have provinces' do you think Canada will have?

Lots. Oil is greener than ethanol. We will be using oil for decades to come and Alberta and Saskatchewan will be "have" provinces for a very long time. Even if all grain sources were used in Canada, it would only address under 40% of Canada's needs in a year. The problem: Food prices would be high because there would be no grain grown in Canada.

We are already seeing that effect. Flour has doubled in price in a year. Expect it to go higher as farmers switch to growing food for energy.

However, if Canada continues to develop thermal, wind, sun and hydro as well as work on energy conservation, it will go a long way to helping Canada reduce emissions and save Canadian money in years to come. It will extend our oil supply for years as well.

Edited February 22, 2008 by jdobbin

[noahbody]

hope this fits into this thread...

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/02/22/...servatives.html

just one more example of Harper leading down the garden path. It'll be a good thing for the world when he and the rest of the reformaCONS leave Ottawa.

"Since Prime Minister Stephen Harper came to power, his government has been skeptical of the science on climate change and has backed away from Canada’s Kyoto commitment.

Yes, the previous government was very committed.

[Pliny]

Rationally then, I usually go with the consensus of scientists. It is the people against that consensus who often act emotionally here on these boards.

It is generally those on the right wing or on right wing policy forums who dismiss global warming. I didn't make that up. It's just the way it is.

Rationally, you go with the consensus of scientists, emotionally you go with politicians.

I guess what you are saying is that right wing forums are more rational politically.

We can exercise caution and work on keeping a clean environment. Nothing wrong in that. But theoretical models that predict future disaster are based upon no technological changes in energy consumption and increased consumption of existing energy sources. If we were still burning coal and wood as our major sources of energy as they did 200 years ago we would probably be in trouble today. But they didn't really have any concept of the internal combustion engine or many uses for oil and gas. I imagine there were chicken littles who warned against the development and use of oil and gas at all - highly dangerous and explosive, you know.

So I suggest to act politically today would be a mistake. Society is taking steps without political legislation why should we need tax incentives to do what we are already doing. It would have been a mistake in the seventies with global cooling but politicians then were being convinced of the coming ice age.

Guess, ah agree with Slim on this one!

[Dog]

Breathe Easier

The world is getting cleaner, Al Gore notwithstanding.

Saturday, April 22, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

DELETED by moderator

http://opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110008277

Edited February 22, 2008 by Charles Anthony
re-copied article

[jdobbin]

Rationally, you go with the consensus of scientists, emotionally you go with politicians.

Emotionally, the right wing posters here deny there is a problem and ergo, no need to do anything.

I guess what you are saying is that right wing forums are more rational politically.

We can exercise caution and work on keeping a clean environment. Nothing wrong in that. But theoretical models that predict future disaster are based upon no technological changes in energy consumption and increased consumption of existing energy sources. If we were still burning coal and wood as our major sources of energy as they did 200 years ago we would probably be in trouble today. But they didn't really have any concept of the internal combustion engine or many uses for oil and gas. I imagine there were chicken littles who warned against the development and use of oil and gas at all - highly dangerous and explosive, you know.

So I suggest to act politically today would be a mistake. Society is taking steps without political legislation why should we need tax incentives to do what we are already doing. It would have been a mistake in the seventies with global cooling but politicians then were being convinced of the coming ice age.

Guess, ah agree with Slim on this one!

Please cite what politicians were worried about the global cooling.

The right wing uses this global cooling argument all the time. There was no scientific consensus at the time this was happening. Those that did say it was a possibility said global cooling was possible due to orbital forcing. That is, the planet moving off its axis. Nothing man-made about that.

There was concern about aerosols but they were always less of a concern that greenhouse gases.

It seems that most of the Conservative supporters here advocate doing nothing.

Canadians who do have environmental concerns should vote for other parties. The environment is probably a low priority for a majority Conservative government.

[Dog]

If you want to see all these myths put forth by idobbins and other enviro wackos put to rest just look right here

http://www.junkscience.com/

[jdobbin]

If you want to see all these myths put forth by idobbins and other enviro wackos put to rest just look right here

http://www.junkscience.com/

Yes, we've all seen that website. Please refrain from insults on these boards. It is against forum rules.

As for the website, it confirms that it is mostly right wing organizations that take opposition with environmental issues. The founder of the site also believes smoking is harmless.

[Dog]

. The founder of the site also believes smoking is harmless.

Link ?

Edited February 22, 2008 by Dog

[jdobbin]

Link ?

There are hundreds of them. Here is a few on second hand smoke and smoking.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100318,00.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Advanceme...ience_Coalition

TASSC's purpose was to hire scientists to make an appearance of controversy about health effects of smoking. Operation Whitecoats was actually a continuation of practices first started in 1954, after tobacco companies first learned that there were serious health consequences from smoking, but concealed the evidence and funded industry-friendly researchers to dispute it. [10]

So Milloy thinks smoking is harmless. Are right wingers about to start puffing again? After all, the science on smoking is questionable. It is good for you!

[bush_cheney2004]

....So Milloy thinks smoking is harmless. Are right wingers about to start puffing again? After all, the science on smoking is questionable. It is good for you!

Still, this flawed construct serves a good purpose....both left and right "wingers" continue to smoke, given more than 50 years of research. In climate change parlance, they have chosen to do nothing. And that's OK.

Edited February 23, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Argus]

del

Edited February 25, 2008 by Argus

[Argus]

del

Edited February 25, 2008 by Argus