• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

In Their Own Words: GOP Candidates And Science

From what I've read Huntsman is actually known as a moderate despite being from such a conservative state. He is for civil unions and reformed Utah's backwards alcohol laws. Although you still can't buy beer stronger than 4% ABV in non-state-run stores!
 
I believe the Earth gets warmer, and I also believe the Earth gets cooler. And I think history points out that it does that, and that the idea that man, through the production of CO2 — which is a trace gas in the atmosphere, and the man-made part of that trace gas is itself a trace gas — is somehow responsible for climate change is, I think, just patently absurd when you consider all the other factors, El Niño, La Niña, sunspots, moisture in the air. ... To me, this is an opportunity for the left to create — it's really a beautifully concocted scheme because they know that the Earth is gonna cool and warm.
Click to expand...

Wut.
 
The idea of global warming certainly has trouble gaining traction across broad masses of people. Or do only the experts need to know, anyway, and then tell the government what laws to pass?

Can someone point to the definitve impartial publication that provides the scientific basis for global warming that laymen as well as scientists can put their faith in?

Thanks in advance
Where are Einstein, Hawking, et all when we need them?
Peder
 
So does the idea of the metric system. And the concept of land carrying capacity, and localized economies and on and on.

It's just another symptom.
 
The EPA web site says things like this : Past Climate Change | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

To the layman (me) reading this, it does sort of look like the climate on this planet periodically changes. This doesn't seem to be something particularly new, and I think that perception is what causes people to get annoyed with all of the doomsday talk about global warming. I think people with more immediate problems get sort of irritated by the whole thing. I think most of the GOP candidates capitalize on that sentiment. Just the sort of shameless political behavior that is ruining our government. The Dems do the same thing. God help us.
 
753C said:
The EPA web site says things like this : Past Climate Change | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

To the layman (me) reading this, it does sort of look like the climate on this planet periodically changes. This doesn't seem to be something particularly new, and I think that perception is what causes people to get annoyed with all of the doomsday talk about global warming. I think people with more immediate problems get sort of irritated by the whole thing. I think most of the GOP candidates capitalize on that sentiment. Just the sort of shameless political behavior that is ruining our government. The Dems do the same thing. God help us.
Click to expand...

753C
Many thanks from one layman to another for showing a very nice summary of data and factual statements. (I am a career data analyst and love to see data, charts, graphs, trend lines, fluctuations, confidence estimates etc etc )
The author(s) seem to be very cautious about giving any clear opinion on the question of the moment, but at least the basis for argument is laid out. I've bolded the statement of yours that seems to me to make sense as the nub of the matter. Global warming effects seem to be not large in the short run -- one can't just go outdoors and see them changing on a day to day basis -- so it is quite plausible that people will have more immediate problems they would like help with, and will discount alarmist (or even accurate) projections of the longer-term future. And now /taking a deep breath/ politicians may just have their finger accurately on that pulse. :confused:
Good article!
Peder
 
Peder said:
753C
Many thanks from one layman to another for showing a very nice summary of data and factual statements. (I am a career data analyst and love to see data, charts, graphs, trend lines, fluctuations, confidence estimates etc etc )
The author(s) seem to be very cautious about giving any clear opinion on the question of the moment, but at least the basis for argument is laid out. I've bolded the statement of yours that seems to me to make sense as the nub of the matter. Global warming effects seem to be not large in the short run -- one can't just go outdoors and see them changing on a day to day basis -- so it is quite plausible that people will have more immediate problems they would like help with, and will discount alarmist (or even accurate) projections of the longer-term future. And now /taking a deep breath/ politicians may just have their finger accurately on that pulse. :confused:
Good article!
Peder
Click to expand...

That's from the EPA so I don't think the author was probably allowed to actually express an opinion. But, yeah, the guy who's heat just got turned off in January thinks something like, " Global warming?? I wish it would gloabal warm up in here!"

:lol:
 
Correct re the EPA, but it does look like a nice professional job as far as it goes. Nice article.
 
That is a very nice article lacking in emotional outbursts and perceptive fallacies. Thank you for sharing.

We know that the Earth's climate changes in both gradual and dramatic (relative to our tolerance level) ways. We have recorded and scientific evidence of this. Our current data (at least as how it is interpreted by the majority of the eggheads) indicate that we are in a warming trend that seems to have accelerated along the same timeline as increased CO2 and decreased O2 output. That's all we know, or think we know.

My question is, does it really matter whether or not we have caused an artificial or accelerated a natural warming trend? Does it really matter if our releasing millions of years worth naturally sequestered CO2 back into the atmosphere while simultaneously fractionating the CO2 sequestering process has had no effect at all? The planet has warmed and cooled in the past and will continue to do so in the future. The species that live here will either adapt to the changes or they will perish, just as they have for 4 billion years.

The only point I try to make is that the species homo sapiens sapiens is not exempt from this natural order and that we should act accordingly. The planet doesn't care one way or the other.
 
True about the planet not caring, but man does and isn't it man's (supposed) perturbation of the natural order that man is thinking of trying to mitigate for our (supposed) benefit?
 
Trying to hold back the ocean is like, well, trying to hold back the ocean.

If we stopped all CO2 and methane production today, we have no idea what the result would be. If we replanted all of the lost vegetation tomorrow and waited for it to take up the task of sequestering CO2 we have no idea what the result would be. Have we already tipped the edge and brought the troposphere to a different equilibrium point? We have no idea.

We continually try to master the environment in which we live and I suppose that is in our nature. That nature of invention, curiosity and creativity is what got us to the top of the food chain, but now the major adaptation that will enable us to survive another quarter million years would be to stop trying to bend the planet to our will and realize that we are merely part of a very complex system, and a precariously balanced one at that. Perhaps we should stop worrying about why the planet is warming and how to reverse the trend and start planning to live with wherever it takes us. Even our neolithic forebearers were able to grasp that concept.

Of course, there are those eggheads that think they have evidence that the warming will shut off the ocean's circulatory system and plunge the planet into an ice age. And then there are those pesky epidemiologists that think we are due for a major population reducing outbreak of some enterprising virus. Crazy planet. Y U SO MEAN 2 US?
 
Sneezy, those are among the questions, but there is a lot of "meanwhile" before a quarter million years. And, so far, I don't see anyone talking of staving off the ups and downs of the natural order -- outside of sci-fi anyway. I seems to me the discussion is of mitigating man's own effects upon the Earth's atmosphere and trying to get a handle on the consequences if that is not done.
 
Aye. The Kyoto Accords are a good example. It started off as a great idea, but ended up as a thinly veiled attempt at global welfare.

We aren't ready yet. Our technological advancement has far outstripped our sociological evolution. It will sort itself though, with or without our input.
 
Sneezy said:
Perhaps we should stop worrying about why the planet is warming and how to reverse the trend and start planning to live with wherever it takes us.
Click to expand...

We shouldn't even debate the idea even if it can be reversed or at least slowed down to a point that gives us a longer time to adapt?

Sneezy said:
It will sort itself though, with or without our input.
Click to expand...

It's never been a question whether the Earth will be okay but about those who have to live (or die) with it. This is a misunderstanding I've seen from both the climate change doubters and the fanatical earth-before-humans types. With the former it's a lack of understanding and with the latter it's defeatist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top