Is there conclusive proof of global warming? No. But there's some pretty damning evidence, though. And do we really need to be 100-percent absolutely sure just to cut how much pollution we belch into the atmosphere that we breathe, eat and drink from? *If there turns out to be no global warming, and we cut pollution, we'll still have more breathable air, drinkable water, and a better quality of life. Maybe Houston-area kids are even able to go outside because there are fewer "ozone days." *If there is global warming, however, and we cut pollution, we save our species. Why not just play it safe and make the few modest adjustments that would be beneficial, regardless of global warming? That's just being responsible.
1. There have been droughts forever...there have been droughts since the beginning of time. Besides..didn't you just say that you couldn't look at one part of the globe to determine global warming? 2. We've been told that with warming, we're going to see many more hurricanes....truth be told, we haven't. Nowhere close to the projections. The average number of hurricanes per year in the Atlantic is 9.6. Over the last few years we've been below average. The upper Texas coast hasn't seen a hurricane since 1989. That's the longest stretch without a hurricane making landfall here since the 1870's. And yet the 90's were supposed to be the hottest decade on record, right??? So why aren't we seeing those effects in hurricanes?
The following are reasons I'm concerned with the push to have us all believe that global warming is absolutely true....mostly because these people in power have bought into it...and they're willing to tank an economy to adhere to that faith: "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic and environmental policy." - Timothy Wirth, U.S. Senator, 1990 "Accelerated climate change [is the] primary risk to the human future...we cannot afford to wait for confirming diagnosis." - Maurice Strong, Secretary-General of Rio Earth Summit, 1992 "We must find new resolve to achieve these [greenhouse-gas] reductions, and to do that we simply must commit to binding limits." - President Bill Clinton, 1997 A conclusion is reached that the globe is warming...we can't prove it..for sure, anyway (as B-Bob alludes to)...but we'll believe it. And further...we'll believe that WE are the ones causing it. Forget that volcanoes do more damage to the environment than a millenium of human industry could do....We NEED to believe that we're causing it. And we need to use that fear as a way to power. That's what concerns me. http://cfact.org/Issues.htm Not surprisingly, actual polls of real climatologists paint a much different picture. One, conducted by American Viewpoint, found a majority of U.S. state climatologists say they disagree with the statement that "human activities are already disrupting the global climate" and that global warming "is no longer a theory, but now a fact." By a 44% to 17% margin, the climatologists maintain global warming is a "natural phenomenon," and more believe there is a better chance of another "ice age" than there is of global warming. Another poll done by the University of Hamburg in Germany targeted 400 climatologists and found only 23% in Canada, 13% in Germany, and a mere 3% in the U.S. "strongly agree" that the "global warming process is already underway." So much for scientific consensus.
That was a rhetorical question, we couldn't prove conclusively it was happening, but the world acted and it was the best move we could have made. Global Warming is a very similar situation, with the same groups crowing at one another.
We acted without much cost to our economy. That's not Kyoto, however. That would be at great cost to our economy. And again, we don't know for sure: 1. if it's happening 2. if we're a cause 3. if we're a significant cause/or if doing anything will change it
If we're at war, we don't think twice about pumping BILLIONS more dollars into military coffers. But spending money to face what could be the cause of our species' demise is met with howls of protest. We don't question spending more money on weapons than education and health care combined, but we question spending ANY money on pollution control. We gladly accept ridiculous "tax cuts" though there's no proof of them doing anything positive for the economy. But we scoff at reams of data that suggest that unless we change, we're heading toward world-wide cataclysmic consequences. What do these attitudes say about us?
Your tax cut example might be a closer analogy than your war one. When we're at war, we KNOW we're at war. And we spend money to protect the lives of the troops we put in harm's way...and to accomplish our goals. By the way...we "gladly" accept tax cuts?? Do you gladly accept them?? Or do we debate them??? Do we talk about them?? That approach of "we don't know for sure, but we're gonna ram this down your throats at serious cost to the economy" is exactly what I find frightening. And here, we're talking about the unknown. And we're talking about what could be an unbelievable impact on the economy... http://cfact.org/Issues.htm Just how much this Kyoto treaty will cost is anyone's guess. Green leaders, with plastic smiles and a "Don't Worry, Be Happy" refrain, predict shard reductions in emissions will not cost us anything, and may leave us all richer in the end. But most economists, who aren't suffering from such a lack of oxygen, say cutting energy use 25%, as the treaty likely would require, would hardly mean a chicken in every pot. Right off the bat, the Kyoto treaty would necessitate some form of new and costly tax on fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse emissions. The most comprehensive study to date on what this would mean, conducted by the economic forecasting firm, WEFA, Inc., says that such action, which would send energy prices through the stratosphere, would have severe ripple effects throughout the economy. According to WEFA, gasoline prices would eventually guzzle up an additional 50 cents per gallon, or an extra $7.50 per fill-up, while household energy costs would increase 30-55% by 2010 and a whopping 40-90% by 2020. Consumers would also take it in the wallet when they purchase any one of a host of everyday petroleum-based products ranging from toothpaste and cosmetics to eyeglasses and house paint. In sum, every American household would be forced to shell out anywhere from $2,500 to $5,000 extra per year out of its family piggy bank, while seeing overall income drop by $1,500 annually. U.S. industries, and especially those that have a big appetite for energy like aluminum, steel, paper, and chemical companies, would also suffer greatly, and be at a severe disadvantage in world trade against those countries not as affected by Kyoto's mandates. Even farmers would take a thrashing as a 50 cent-per-gallon increase in fuel would plow down nearly half of net farm income and drive food costs up almost 10%. When all is said and done, WEFA estimates the good old U.S. of A. would lose 2.4% of its GDP, or $227 billion in 2010 alone — an amount equal to all the money spent right now by federal and local governments on elementary and high schools throughout the entire nation — and a total of nearly 2 million American jobs.
The hole in the ozone layer is shrinking. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/30/tech/main523785.shtml
If you think we're not already paying $10-15 a gallon for gas, you must have missed the last two "wars." These oil wars cost tens of billions of dollars (and thousands of lives), and that money comes from your pocket -- whether you pay at the pump or on April 15. If we cut fossil fuel usage, we cut the amount of military we need around the world, freeing up money for education and health care at home. Decreasing pollution also improves health, lowers health care costs and improves quality of life. Taxes go down, services go up. We'd also be independent of unstable Middle Eastern oil sources. Oh, and there's also the added bonus that we'd be saving our species from its demise. Or we can continue to belch toxins into the air and cross our fingers.
Nobody can prove that the Global Warming theory is true, yet Democrats are willing to destroy our economy as we know it by placating the UN and signing the Kyoto Accord. That is despicable to me.
You know, it was better when you were playing Encyclopedia Brown, J.V. Climatologist, this type of silly hyperbole is just boring to me and pretty much everybody else
Wow, you speak for "everybody else"? LOL, what a responsibility! The only hyperbole I hear is coming from those supporting the Kyoto Accord. Tell me, would our way of life remain similar with 8 dollar a gallon gas?
Our petroleum costs are subsidized by the federal highway system, arms *loans* to prop up almost every other regime in the Persian Gulf, the last two Gulf Wars, our current occupation of Iraq, and our welfare state relationship with Israel. Calculate your gasoline costs with those numbers in mind.
The Ozone hole is shrinking this year do to global temperatures: The complete closing of the hole will be the result of the ban on CFCs and will take 5 decades: Yet another ridiculous post johnheath.
"you had me at hello" your first points were interesting...arguable...but it's this crap that i'm just not buying. i just don't see it. we already know that there were hotter periods of time, even if they were in isolated areas, on average. and those were times when we had far less industrialization than we have now...or zero industrialization even. i'm not buying that we affect this big planet as much as you do...i suppose that makes me closed-minded...or an idiot...or not up on current wisdom. but i can't wait until these same folks go back to what they were telling us in the 70's..that we should be preparing for the next ice age. the more we know...they more we find we were wrong before.
Hmm, let's see. All I said was that the hole in the ozone layer is shrinking. Countless scientists will confirm that the ozone layer is shrinking. You agree that the ozone layer is shrinking. What is missing here?
We can only imagine how many 10s of millions of additional lives would have been lost if we waited for proof (in terms of identifying the precise biological mechanism) that HIV caused AIDS or smoking caused cancer. I do find it odd "conservatives" want to tred cautiously with regard to snipping potential growing foreign threats yet with something of the magnitude of global climate impact they want infintely higher degree of proof before acting. MM I also have to find it somewhat surprising you are so concerned by the "people in power" that buy into global warming, do you not see equal or greater potential conflict and biases for the alternative (where serious money is involved). I mean the whole enviro lobby if you will probably has somewhere between 1/10th and 1/100th the pull of industry.
