Warming Consensus?

[Archaea]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

Note who the author is and where he works.

Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

His summary:
So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.

First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade. Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky.

For those who are completely convinced that global warming is established beyond all doubt, why?

If the evidence were so conclusive, why is it necessary to lie?

[UtahDan]

You make me laugh Archaea. ;-)

[non sequitur]

What bothers me most about the debate is the way it has become politicized. I'm not a scientist, and I don't pretend to know the extent of global warming or the long term effects of global warming, but what I do know is that this should not be a liberal/conservative issue. It should be a human issue. So when I hear partisan political hacks hold forth on global warming or the non-existence thereof, I tend to discount their rhetoric and move on to others who don't have a political axe to grind. The stakes are much too high for this to be reduced to petty political Sniping.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

What bothers me most about the debate is the way it has become politicized. I'm not a scientist, and I don't pretend to know the extent of global warming or the long term effects of global warming, but what I do know is that this should not be a liberal/conservative issue. It should be a human issue. So when I hear partisan political hacks hold forth on global warming or the non-existence thereof, I tend to discount their rhetoric and move on to others who don't have a political axe to grind. The stakes are much too high for this to be reduced to petty political Sniping.

Unfortunately, in today's America, everything has become politicized. All politicians will take a stance on anything if it will help them get elected.

As for me, I do what I can when it comes to help the environment. That's all I can do.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

What bothers me most about the debate is the way it has become politicized. I'm not a scientist, and I don't pretend to know the extent of global warming or the long term effects of global warming, but what I do know is that this should not be a liberal/conservative issue. It should be a human issue. So when I hear partisan political hacks hold forth on global warming or the non-existence thereof, I tend to discount their rhetoric and move on to others who don't have a political axe to grind. The stakes are much too high for this to be reduced to petty political Sniping.

Well said. Sadly, as IPU notes, so many things are so polarized and politicized that it is hard to find objective sources of information.

Gore is an interesting case study. I have no doubt he is sincere in his views on addressing perceived environmental problems. But at the same time, he is surely politically savvy enough to realize that anything more than minor steps will be politically untenable due to the negative affects on the economy and disruption in people's lives. I was at Kyoto as Gore came in pushing the Clinton Administration's aggressive agenda to reach an agreement. At the same time, he and his representatives were being told by Democrat congressmen and senators from industrial, blue collar districts and states who where in Kyoto that the thing was dead in the water as far as ratification. It all comes off as a political game to shore up support on the "green" side of the party while not alienating labor.

Frankly, I think the environmental movement has given up on people my age. Their target is much younger where they appear to have fully assimilated primary school educators. My children are fully environmentally Borg, at least in their understanding. Whether or not that translates into practice, I don't know.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

Frankly, I think the environmental movement has given up on people my age. Their target is much younger where they appear to have fully assimilated primary school educators. My children are fully environmentally Borg, at least in their understanding. Whether or not that translates into practice, I don't know.

What is YOUR understanding? Environmentally Borg is the 'conservative' approach to self-preservation. In other words, we may not know EVERYTHING, but we know enough to proceed with caution.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Robin

What is YOUR understanding? Environmentally Borg is the 'conservative' approach to self-preservation. In other words, we may not know EVERYTHING, but we know enough to proceed with caution.

My assumption is that humans do impact the environment, sometimes negatively, and that we should take and have taken measures to lessen that negative impact (air and water pollution are good examples). However, I lament what I see as the fairly extreme elements of the environmentalist lobby tending to dominate the debate via the media and in the schools my children have attended. That only seems to engender an extreme reaction. I would like to see a measured, two-sided discussion of these issues and the potential impact on us all that doesn’t include scare tactics like Manhattan Island either under 20 feet of water or glacial ice.

For example, yesterday Oprah was talking global warming, noting that over the past couple of years she “felt” a change herself (it’s called menopause, Oprah, but that’s a whole other show). She had Leonardo DiCaprio who then gave a very tortured explanation of the alleged problem (he really should read the briefing memo more closely as he obviously couldn’t even recall the simple term “greenhouse gasses”). To her credit, Oprah had as her third guest a real scientist, Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton (although far from an objective source) who argued the dire circumstances in which we find ourselves, noting a dramatic rise in global temperatures over the past 50 years as compared to those of the past 1,000 to 2,000 years. He advocated hybrid cars (DiCaprio chimed in that he now drives one which generated much applause from the adoring audience and I suspect more "global warming" within Oprah) and some new longer lasting light bulb. I had other things to do so that is where I left the Oprah show, but I feel fairly confident in assuming that there was little serious exploration of Oppenheimer’s claims or the economic and societal impacts of measures espoused to counter the real or perceived threat. Hybrids and efficient light bulbs might not be bad ideas, and economic realities may be moving Americans that way anyway. I just want a less polarized, two-sided debate aimed at coming up with realistic solutions to real problems. I don’t see that right now.

A final note on people like Oprah and DiCaprio. I have no doubt their lifestyles as single individuals have a much larger (perhaps 10 fold) environmental footprint than that of my family of six (despite DeCaprio’s hybrid car). The minute the movement espouses limiting these two to studio apartments, hybrid cars, public transportation in town, economy class when flying, and no AC in the summer, then sign me up.

Either that or the guillotine; I'm feeling French today.

[Archaea]

The fact that you watched Oprah gives me cause for concern. The fact that you admit makes me believe you may be beyond hope.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The fact that you watched Oprah gives me cause for concern. The fact that you admit makes me believe you may be beyond hope.

Okay, time to reclaim my manhood.

Oprah comes on at strange times on AFN and the Mother in Law is in town. She was watching at around 8:30 last night as I was trying to find my mitt to play catch with my 10-year-old.

That said, I occasionally sit down with Mrs. myboynoah to take in the newest religious phenomenon called "Oprahism." The adoring looks of the adherents, the smug pronouncements coming from "The Oprah," the hypocrisy that seems to be the most important facet of this new religion. Occasionally I just need something to guffaw and roll my eyes at. Mrs. myboynoah, while a skeptic, does not at all appreciate my open antagonism; hence, I rarely make it through a full Oprah Mass.

One of the funniest SNL sketches I've seen of late was one that mocked this very phenomenon. I about pee'd my pants.

[Archaea]

Sure likely story from a Frenchie, no less.

You may have spent too much time in France. You might need to visit Germany to reclaim your manhood.

Allez vite!