Yes, more that one scientist. According to those hippys at the American Meteorlogical Society ("The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus" http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf) slightly under 10% of scientists writing about the issue in the 1970's predicted global cooling. Climate science has come along way since then, but most scientists, even then, predicted global warming. Now there is firm scientific consensus.
You say you wish "our side" would stop cherry picking anomolies. I wish "your side" would stop misrepresenting scientific consensus. The World Meteorological Organization[ http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0703-05.htm] and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency[http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/webprintview/ActionsIndustryInsurance.html] have linked increasing extreme weather events to global warming. That last link discusses the insurance industry revising its policies to protect themselves against the new weather patterns. Over 90% of scientists and scientific organizations agree about the basic science and its general implications. These scientists are extremely worried.
You misrepresent the IPCC report. In its last report, 2007, it found that "World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century (table 3) and that:
Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm (7.08 to 23.22 in) [table 3]." It also links global warming to a change in weather patterns.
What scares me?: scientific consensus that we will experience a wide array of apocalyptic events (mass extinctions, agricultural disasters, and increases in the range of disease vectors, to name a few) if we don't do something. Mass human death.
You don't like Hansen, fine. He is not a radical, and I agree that he is not the final word. Pick your poison. What do you think is a rational carbon level, as measured by PPM? How should we reach and sustain that level?
Me: I still don't buy it. In the last century, starting with Woodrow Wilson (who jailed people who vocally opposed World War I in their own homes), we've seen too many menaces requiring massive government intervention now, now, now! in the way we live our private lives. And this stuff has got the whiff of all that. If I'm wrong, the world won't be the poorer by it; I've only one vote, and I'm going to use it on a guy who unfortunately buys into all of this, McCain. But I don't think I'm wrong.
Having said that, Jimmy is serious about all this, and he's done me the courtesy of supplying a few links. So I'll shut up about all this until I read them over the weekend. Right now--unless the Charles River rises and floods the Back Bay--I've the Yankees and Red Sox to worry about. Happy sailing.
6 comments:
You're going to associate Gore with a lack of due process, with a desire to invade our private lives? Good stuff.
Your Yankees are killing it. Looking forward to seeing you and Astro Girl before too long.
Yes. And Yes.
Due process is a rather narrow term, but many of the aspects of environmentalism have, at their core, the goal for the state to control the way we live in ways far more invasive than any telecom amnesty.
The "global warming" portion of environmentalism is only a part of the fascist element of the whole enterprise.
Kind words about my boys.
Fascism does not mean what Jonah Goldberg thinks it means.
Oh, and I disagree about your claim here. Both the lack of due process as far as detaining American citizens and others, as well as spying on Americans without a warrant, are far more invasive than what you claim environmentalism seeks. The idea of a unitary executive, excused by the need for a permanant commander-and-chief of us all, who must be given more powers, at the expense of our liberties, is a little more fascist than wanting to figure out a way to stop global warming.
As to your first comment--obviously my recent immersion in Goldberg informs my POV, though it's one I've had for awhile. I was thinking also of Thomas Sowell and Richard Pipes. But okay--whose definition is correct?
And I suppose I have only myself to blame, but I'm in the middle of my assigned GW reading and have to leave FISA and detentions for later.
We'll talk when we have a chance to get together. I'll see if I can track down some Sowell and Pipes (never heard of them) after grading a batch of papers. I'm glad you want to read the stuff I cite. The AMS one is short, and last two pages hits the media/science part.
Will Oswalt still be an Astro after Thursday?
Post a Comment