Out today... http://www.nandotimes.com/politics/story/22034p-414263c.html Politics: U.S. study says global warming is real, strong within past 20 years By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press WASHINGTON (June 6, 2001 09:22 p.m. EDT) - The National Academy of Sciences, in a report commissioned by the Bush administration, said Wednesday that global warming "is real and particularly strong within the past 20 years," and it said a leading cause is the emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. The report was requested to help prepare Bush for his trip to Europe next week, but the academy was not asked for policy recommendations and it made none. In Europe, Bush has meetings on global warming scheduled with various officials. Many Europeans protested vigorously after Bush, citing looming energy shortages, in March reversed a campaign promise to limit CO2 emissions from power plants. The 24-page National Academy of Sciences report, an assessment based on previous studies about the phenomenon, says, "The primary source, fossil fuel burning, has released roughly twice as much carbon dioxide as would be required to account for the observed increase" in temperature. The report also blames global warming on other greenhouse gases directly affected by human activity: methane, ozone, nitrous oxide and chlorofluorocarbons. "Despite the uncertainties, there is general agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past 20 years," it says. "Global warming could well have serious adverse societal and ecological impacts by the end of this century." One U.S. area likely to be hard hit by climate change is the United States' breadbasket, the Great Plains. Two senior Bush advisers, John Bridgeland, who oversees domestic policy, and Gary Edson, an economist, wrote to the academy May 11 asking for help with "identifying the areas in the science of climate change where there are the greatest certainties and uncertainties." In preparation for his round of meetings with European allies, Bush held a lengthy meeting with Cabinet members Tuesday to come up with a strategy on how to sell his almost-finished proposal for a global-warming agreement, according to senior administration officials. In March, he rejected an international pact former Vice President Al Gore signed in Kyoto, Japan, that would have set tight limits on emissions of many greenhouse gases. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said the academy report was unnecessary and "underscores the lack of leadership" by Bush on global warming. "The science on this has been strong enough that presidents and foreign ministers of other countries have moved on this for years," Kerry said. But now that the report is in hand, he said, "It increases the imperative for them to take action." Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a major participant in the debate on global warming, said the report "provides us with a basis to move forward with an alternative" global warming strategy. Though the report is neutral on that, scientists "really do know that CO2 is the main driver" behind global warming, said the report's lead author, Ralph Cicerone, chancellor of the University of California, Irvine. Prepared in less than a month by 11 scientists, the report finds agreement with the assessment of human-caused climate change by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an agency of the United Nations. "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue," the report says. It says, however, the increase of global fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions in the past decade has averaged about 0.6 percent per year, less than the range of IPCC scenarios. Other findings are: -By 2100, temperatures are expected to increase between 2.5 degrees and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit above those of 1990. -The predicted warming is larger over higher latitudes than over low latitudes, especially during winter and spring, and larger over land than over the oceans. -Rainfall rates and the frequency of heavy precipitation events are predicted to increase, particularly over the higher latitudes. "The likelihood that this effect could prove important is greatest in semiarid regions, such as the U.S. Great Plains," the report says. On the Net: National Academy: http://www.nationalacademies.org United Nations site: http://www.ipcc.ch EPA global warming site: http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming ------------------ Everything you do, effects everything that is.
BrianKagy: I have reservations about the list, but am willing to concede that I hadn't seen it before, and will never again say there's no remotely credible association that doubts global warming. One question, specifically for Kagy: Alright, suppose it IS truly contested right now (purely hypothetical)... and the odds are 50% that humans are causing global warming. Is that really a good argument for not taking preventative measures? Beta claims that such measures would result in a $2500 reduciton in per capita GDP. For a moment, let's buy this . Such is SUBSTANTIALLY outweighed by the possibility of desertification, flooding, rampant diseases, famine, massive species extinction, etc, which would be caused by global warming. Even if the situation is a coin flip, wouldn't you rather be prepared? My biggest problem with it is actually this: if, as Achebe says, they're really not introducing evidence AGAINST the inherent phenomenon of man-induced of global warming, but rather attacking the statistical models that suggest it, then that petition is becoming very dated. It was begun in 1997, and new models have come into being all the time. From what I understand, the biggest problem left is the issue of clouds, which are evidently almost impossible to simulate. ------------------ A few years back on the Senate floor... Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe." Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!" Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001 [This message has been edited by haven (edited June 07, 2001).]
"No kidding? Perhaps you should try to seek out opposite opinions, instead of constantly repeating the party line." maybe you should follow your own advice ------------------ http://www.democrats.com mgh 1924-2001
Sure Brian, there are scientists that are going to disagree on an issue. But IMO, this is explicitly a modeler (I can use a relative methodology, not absolute, but relative... but it's the best I have) vs. a old school field scientist(You don't know **** b/c this disconformity makes everything up here conjecture) issue. The old school field scientist is going to be right sometimes, b/c as you pointed out, the averages of simply being a devil's advocate. Unfortunately, the current experiment is on such a large scale, and the risks are so incredibly important, that I'm not sure that we should play the "we don't have inconclusive evidence... everything says that it could do this, but..." sort of game just b/c of the incredible ramifications. If one of the Ice Shelfs falls in the water, Bombay is gone.... GONE. Houston is GONE. New York is GONE (and frankly I don't want you guys moving to Salt Lake ). Sure someone might say "uhhh... maybe clouds will take care of everything". Isn't that a big "maybe"??? We're taking plants 10s of millions of years old from the lithosphere and releasing their wares into the atmosphere. Religious people are always arguing that we shouldn't act like animals b/c we have the ability to choose. Why keep bumbling through the bush on this one BK? Why not choose a safer route until we do find out more of the variables/processes? ------------------ girl you looks good won't you mock that draft up?!
What do you suppose the "odds" are that a fetus is a person? I guess potential humans aren't allowed these same "preventative measures". You're willing to err on the side of caution with "global warming", because it may be a reality, but not in the instance of abortion, where humans may be getting killed. Shouldn't the way I wish to treat the environment be my choice?
TheFreak: This has already morphed from Roger Clinton to the environment, so why not abortion now , eh? The difference being, that global warming is an issue of collective security. Every human on the planet (almost) would face the detrimental consequences of global warming. Not so for abortion. You really dislike my opinions on abortion, don't you? Why? I know you're pro-life, but you seem to particularly dislike the way I think about it. ------------------ A few years back on the Senate floor... Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe." Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!" Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001
The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment I am just curious as to how reducing greenhouse gasses that humans have added to the atmosphere would "harm the environment." They were not there before us, we added them. Was the environment in trouble before we started releasing chemicals into the air? ------------------ "You sanctimonious philistines, who scoff at me!"
BETO POSTS: "The fact is that the Kyoto treaty will cripple the United States' economy (avg. household income will drop $2500), while third world countries can manufacture to their heart's content without the same restrictions." So if someone else jumps off a bridge you will too right beto? 'other countries are doing it so why cant I??' WA Wa WA WA!! economy? who f*cking cares MAN!! this is the f*cking enviroment man!! economy over environment?? $2500??!! thats it to take a step towards a cleaner f*cking world??!! jesus!! you suck messenger!! maybe this tells you something as well Beto: Since November I have been in Madrid (2 times), Bangkok (2 times), Mexico city( 2 times) and I am now in Paris at 2:30 am writing this post because your and bushs' enviromental takes make me f*cking throw up.. and all these people I meet in these foreign countries business situations mind you..they all cannot stand bush...ALL OF THEM..they are becoming confrontational..today was bad at work when they started asking me about OUR president..I can only defend for so long BETO.. you are mindless and this bush guy just plain scares me more and more..we are losing the WORLDS support on a daily basis and I see that every time I leave the US..eventually we will be an island by ourselves.. ohh I guess its okay we have the nuke right? and who gives a sh*t about the environment anyway...right?? ------------------ "no matter how good she looks someone... somewhere..is tired of her sh*t"
I see no inconsistency here. Abortion may take a life (see criteria below), but pregnancy definitely increases the likelihood of the mother dying over surgical or medical (RU486) abortion. This is a fact, despite all our OBGYN advances even in the most medically advanced countries. When the fetus is viable (in my view a "life"), there is a tough call to make when a woman's health is at risk. Until a fetus is viable however, a woman should have no restrictions in weighing and acting on her risks. If my brother needs one of my kidneys to survive, it is my choice to let him have it. Of course I would, but it would be my choice, not forced by government.
TheFreak, if I say your analogy works, will you become an ardent environmentalist? ------------------ girl you looks good won't you mock that draft up?!
TheFreak's analogy is good and true, but Achebe may have you painted into a corner here, so don't accept his offer. Haven's dismissal of your analogy because of the scale of the damage is a bit unfair... especially to the little one. I prefer your real vs theoretical contrast. Or how about immediate vs future. ------------------ Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils.
TheFreak's analogy is good and true, but Achebe may have you painted into a corner here, so don't accept his offer. Haven's dismissal of your analogy because of the scale of the damage is a bit unfair... especially to the little one. I prefer your real vs theoretical contrast. Or how about immediate vs future. ------------------ Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils.
That is not a proper analogy. TheFreak's logic is talking about the definition of crimes against human rights, by first defining what is human. we all agree that x killing y is wrong. now define y? defining y is the pro-life debate. And I'm not questioning that debate one way or another, just describing the absolute pure logic of it. Nowhere is the treaty described as defining crimes against human rights. It is simply a treaty on whether or not to participate in lowering the release of gases by first decided if it is necessary to do so. a,b,c assume greenhouse effect and sign treaty y doesn't choose to y doesn't y. That is the argument. one side is not arguing that the other side is doing a crime against a human being. At best, they are accepting the need for releasing gases, but to agree to limit them. The proper analogy would be equivalent to pro-choicer's signing a treaty to limit the number of abortions. TheFreak may as well apply his weak (yet effective) logic to OPEC treaties while its fresh in his mind by saying that if babies are murdered, Venezuela has the choice to break their OPEC treaty and pump more oil. BK recently told me he instinctively question words from someone who lists credentials before those words. I instinctively question analogy games that claim pure logic yet bare no understanding of the clearly defined rules of pure logic. The analogy does not hold true to the rules of pure Logic games. Thus, it is correct to completely dismiss that attempt at logical analogy. ...next
Sure heyp, he's totally begging the question when he defines human, but the funnier thing to me(if you grant that a fetus is a self-directed organism) is that he posts things like that trying to suggest that using haven's (or whomever's) logic that such and such person should be pro-life... when he'll never follow through on the 'self reflective follows'. I'll posit( as an example): If you're a vegetarian based on sentient concerns, then you should be pro-life. For what reasons are pro-life people not vegetarian? Oh yeah, human hubris. (I'm slapping the keyboard and the Mrs. is stirring, oops... but everybody should read mc mark's NAS post). btw, richrocket, is it about winning or doing the right thing??? ------------------ girl you looks good won't you mock that draft up?! [This message has been edited by Achebe (edited June 08, 2001).]
Abortion is a personal issue. Regardless of what the law says, a woman will be able to determine the destiny of the fetus inside her. The environment is a societal issue. We all breathe the same air. I'm comfortable with government regulations on the quality of air and water, but I'm against the government regulating a woman's choice about something growing inside her.
heypartner: Isn't an analogy by definition just an approximation not an equation? So, while I admire the tenacity of your argument, I also find it excessively restrictive. Achebe: I saw the parallellism when I read his response to you. Of course, doing the right thing is more important. What would you say if we reversed the tables and agree to become ardent pro-environment when "they" become ardent pro-lifers? The evidence about the ozone layer is not definitive but the outcome of EVERY single non-medically necessary abortion is absolutely and irreversibly definitive and terminal: an innocent, unique human soul vanquished for a preference. How absurd! jamcracker: a simple question-- why shouldn't the fetus be able to determine the future of the woman outside of him/her? ------------------ Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils. [This message has been edited by RichRocket (edited June 08, 2001).]
Why not choose a safer route until we do find out more of the variables/processes? Here's the problem, in a nutshell. From my perspective, I don't think it's worth the cost to try to prevent a warming trend that we can't even prove is man-made. I don't question the credibility of the scientists who think the global-warming theory is happening in practice right now. They know a lot more about it than I do. But until the theory is factually proven to be occuring, I'm not going to be in favor of upsetting the apple cart. The theory makes sense. So does the theory of evolution. The problem is that neither theory can be proven, yet. The cost of believing the theory of evolution is neglible; the cost of the proposals to halt global warming is, in my opinion, prohibitively expensive. Two questions: 1) What happened to the global cooling theory of the 1970s? What new evidence did we discover that led scientists who 25-30 years ago thought an Ice Age might be approaching to change their tune and claim that massive warming was on the way? 2) One of the most prominent environmental activists among the scientific community was, and is, Dr. Paul Erhlich. Would anyone like to try to defend Dr. Erhlich's track record of forecasting?
RichRocket: 1. Heypartner wasn't excessively limiting anything. TheFreak's analogy was contingent upon my accepting his definition of life. If we don't accept that presumption, it falls short. I didn't mention this, because we've had THAT arguement out one too many times on this board. That's not "excessively rigid." 2. What I meant by self-regarding and other-regarding actions is derived largely from Isaiah Berlin's work (though certainly Mill as well). Different ethics apply when they affect the entire community. Under my interpretation, abortion affects only the mother. Even under TheFreak's interpretation, it affects only the mother and fetus (baby), making it interpersonal. But it isn't societal, and therefore less scrutiny is appropriate. When dealing with pollution, that's the most broad level of interaction possible, and demands the greatest degree of scrutiny over individual autonomy. See? BrianKagy: Under your thesis, solving the problem of global warming is *impossible*. Why? Because many scientists believe (not sure if anyone disagrees) that global warming, once you're well into it, would take DECADES to halt. In other words, by the time you have clear proof of it, it's impossible to do anything abou tit. If this is true, then the wait-and-see approach is itself a choice to do nothing. Some also (but fewer) believe that global warming may be a self-perpetuating process. That is, once it's well on its way, it spirals out of control. This makes sense to me: once all of those fossil fuels have been burnt, their contents remain in the atmosphere, make the world warmer, when stimulates further plant growth, which... well, you get the picture. Achebe probably understands it better . Just look at the cost-benefit analysis. Supposing there to be an even DECENT change of global warming, how can you justify not doing something about it? At worst (and I mean, if we accept ultra-right-wing interpretations) you lose $2,500 per capita GDP. I don't see how that compares to the alternative. I think all the "well, in the 70's scientists were predicting an ice age" is a bit trite. Yes, they were wrong. But does that necessitate them being wrong again? Models have improved, the data has improved, and we understand more about what's going on around us. ------------------ A few years back on the Senate floor... Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe." Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!" Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001 [This message has been edited by haven (edited June 08, 2001).]
Haven, c'mon. I already told you, I think the theory makes sense. But there isn't a "good chance" that we need to act on it because there is no clear, factual evidence that we're causing global warming or that the current warming trend is anything but a natural shift. As for the $2500 figure, how often are projections such as these correct? How often are these type of presumptions even close? I am fairly secure in the belief that the cost in real dollars would be far steeper.
I edited my post, refer to above: new argument. Sorry, I know my reply was redundant at first. I realized that after I'd clicked post. As for the $2,5000... most predictions indicate that going green would be long-term beneficial to the economy. In the short-term, I'm not really sure... but that # was Beto's, so I figured it was as high as possible ------------------ A few years back on the Senate floor... Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe." Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!" Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001 [This message has been edited by haven (edited June 08, 2001).]
