More Linkage

I just picked up an updated paperback edition, too. I'll write a post about it when I have a chance to take a look.

I got your reply, (yay it works) and sent a response. I hope your book tour is going well, let me know what you want to do come S.F.
Karl

Global Warming: a partisan debate?

Let's talk about global warming.

If you were to rely on Al Gore's evidence (An Inconvenient Truth), you could not help but agree that global warming is a real and present danger. Gore's evidence relies primarily on ice core samples taken in the Antarctic and Greenland.

I recently read a comment on the Internet (can't find it now) that references data much farther back than Gore's evidence that negates Gore's premise and conclusion. It was something like "the earth has had much warmer temperatures in the past and it did not eradicate life on earth then". But then, that was way before humans populated the earth. Gore's data, and that of most scientists, only tracks temperatures within the life cycle of humans to give evidence of global warming. The evidence indicates that increasing CO2 levels in the air coincide with global warming.

If there is no such thing as global warming, then why is the EPA talking about it?
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html

"According to the National Academy of Sciences, the Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, with accelerated warming during the past two decades. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." (Emphasis mine.)

But the critics of this statement would have us believe that most of the global warming in the 20th Century occurred in the first few decades, well before widespread burning of fossil fuels. Notice carefully that they admit to the presence of global warming.

Consider this news release:

U.N.: No 'natural' disasters?
JunkScience.com / FoxNews.com, Jan 21, 2005
The United Nations is trying to blame natural disasters on, of all things, people. President Bush, however, is standing in its way.

But that news release isn't about global warming. It's about rejecting the U.N.'s premise that humans are responsible for global warming and Bush is against that idea. If humans are causing the recent weather calamities, that would change everything about insurance policies and who pays for what - and Bush certainly doesn't want the United States to pay for India's 'natural' disasters simply because it can clearly be seen that the US is a major contributor to global warming. So in a way, Bush is acknowledging that global warming exists.

The kinds of statements that some supposedly intelligent people make regarding the cause of global warming are, in my mind, close to lunacy. Here's a sampling of what some so-called "people haters" have to say (fun reading): http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=876

And the summary of all that:
"They don't like people and they are quite prepared to use any excuse to inhibit enabling technology, chemicals and affordable energy. Why are we pursuing a course set by people haters?"

So the people haters seem to be blaming global warming on technology, which is, of course, a side effect of what people want more of and, given the trend of computer technology, is expanding at a tremendous rate. But again, there is the admission that global warming exists.

Now, looking at the other side (impending ice age), if warmer global temperatures causes the polar ice to melt, one scientist claims that this will cause cooler temperatures in the polar regions and create another ice age. Huh? That is very hard for the non-scientist to follow. However, even the skeptics agree with this condition, assuring us that such a change would take decades, not hours as the movie "Day After Tomorrow" would have us believe (see http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/04-06-04.html). One scientist seems to think that human activities (specifically, farming) may have actually forestalled an impending ice age (see http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/05-10-04.html). Suffice it to say, the skeptics (at least one of them) agree that dramatic global change is in the works and that it has been more evident in the past couple of decades, and the trend is definitely on the increase. It's just not something to worry about this decade (so they say). So when do we start worrying about it?

No global warming? Even the critics of what the news media is reporting do not actually say there is no such thing as global warming, just in what does or does not cause it (see http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032204.html). Hmmm. Maybe CO2 isn't the smoking gun. Alright now, are we to believe a large panel of scientists the world over or the National Center For Public Policy Response? And who is behind the NCPPR? My preliminary research indicates it is primarily a Republican voice. Why do I think that? Because Bush and other Republicans openly applaud the work of the NCPPR. If Bush likes it, it can't be the work of the Democrats.

Well, even if global warming isn't an impending disaster for humans, in a direct sense, maybe we can take solace in this report:

All Things Considered, January 7, 2004 · A study in the journal Nature suggests that climate change in the next 50 years could doom many species to extinction. Some experts who disagree with the new paper's estimates acknowledge that the role of climate change should be taken into account. NPR's Richard Harris reports. (Emphasis mine.)

The only real opposition I can find to global warming appears to be spearheaded by Republicans. Here's a report that identifies three views on global warming, two for and one against: (see http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1893089)

To give what may be a completely unbiased report, CO2 Science in their report "There Has Been No Net Global Warming for the Past 70 Years" (see http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V3/N13/EDIT.jsp) gives ample evidence of their own, relying on tree-rings, to support no global warming. By the way, the chairman of CO2 Science is a graduate of Arizona State University. The president is related to the chairman and also hails from an Arizona background. The vice president and operations manager are also related to the chairman and also hail from ASU. Where's the unbiased perspective here? Think: Arizona - a largely Republican state supporting anything that Bush has to say.

So which are we to believe? The tree-ring version or the ice core version?

So, if you are a Republican, don't worry. But if you are not a Republican (which is the majority of all adults in the US), start thinking about what your great-great-great grandchildren will be eating and wearing. Aw shucks, why worry at all? You won't be around then!

For a more complete treatise on comments and news about global warming, see http://www.topix.net/search/?q=global+warming.

I have it on the authority of a good paleobotany scientist here at UC Davis that "CO2 Science" is not a neutral and unbiased source. They seem to be an industry front. I mean come on, the greening of the Earth? How about the acidification of Earth's oceans and the destruction of calcium-dependent marine life? I guess that's not pro-CO2 enough for them to bother to print.