I thought the Republicans denied that this existed

[Art]

Burgold,

I hear you brother. But, talk of global warming IS crapola. That's PRECISELY what it is. It is rubbish and garbage. It is a neophyte science that over 30 years has changed from global cooling to global warming. Now, that's not to say it's not true.

But, it's garbage to take 100 years of millions and use any statistical basis for drawing a conclusion as to what you are seeing. So, I think perhaps you took my word of crapola to mean we should do nothing. And I took your thought that we should do something to mean we should do something colassally stupid like adopting Kyoto on suspect science with wide gradations in findings that always tend toward the political.

That alone makes global warming talk crapola. That every scientific group that produces a study on it has an outcome that proves a political point the scientist may happen to believe in. For every EPA loonacy that predicts a 10 degree rice in the next decade there's another that says even after adopting Kyoto, you'd get less than a half degree of weather change from such, but you'd also crush world economy.

There was a time talk of the earth being round and rotating around the sun was crapola too. Whether Global Warming ultimately is true or not is irrelevant as to what it is now as a discussion and with the science we presently have to understand it. It may also be that there is no such thing as Global Warming caused by humans. And until you have some basis and solid, agreed upon level of understanding of the issue, the BEST possible outcome is that the government and individual scientists will study it -- as we're doing -- and world leaders will be mindful of it and willing to adopt change if it would prove beneficial.

Adopting a radical treaty that really only harms us while excluding huge polluting countries is just not something we should entertain as reasonable. Especially not based upon what we have at present.

[fansince62]

burgold....nice series of posts......some of us are old enough to remember these debates as they took wing with the first Earth Days in the 1960's and on into the 70s, 80s and 90s. for those of us who have been around DC or engaged in "science" we know that data can be very much influenced by the collector's interaction with the environment. were one to be cynical, one could interpret this to mean the collector's biases can influence the data samples considered representative (hint: some of us have had friends who worked at EPA. why, we may even have had parents who worked there and expounded at length at the dinner table over "scientific analysis" as practiced, at times, at EPA). some of us may have even been around in the 70s and 80s when obviously cynical decisions were made about nuclear vs coal, or Eastern (high BTU, high sulfur) vs Western (lower BTU, lower sulphur) coal. for my own part, i'm willing to follow the "evidence" and reasoned argument. but, i must say I do get very torked at the meatheads who, under the guise of scientific analysis, advance political arguments, move the decison process into an unknown course, and then claim years later that new science and new solutions need to be implemented. this diatribe is not directed at you, btw. but what i find irksome is the complete lack of any ownership when it comes to recognizing the consequences of bad science, bad policy, or bad social behavior. let me give you another example that is sure to inflame this board....the AIDS/HIV thread that was winding through this post and a few others.........I was living in Ca when this took off. I support government actions that lessen the exposure of everyone to this risk, and helps ameliorate the pain suffered by those who contracted the disease. however, I also believe that people should be held accountable for their actions. i'm not homo-phobic, but during the period I was living in Ca it was well documented how the activities and lifestyles of sizable segments oif the gay community accelerated and exacerbated the initial takeoff phase of the AIDS epidemic. I have yet to hear anyone from the gay community accept responsibility for putting the rest of us at risk. was every gay man/woman responsible? no. but large segments of this sexual preference group did practice irresponsible behavior even after the word started getting around. are other groups equally culpable? yes. drug users and prostitutes did their share to screw the rest of us (no pun intended). i'm not preaching morality here - each of us has the right to make a choice. what pisses me off is the arrant lack of honesty, integrity and maturity large segments of the population demonstrate in failing to own up to the consequences of their actions.

[Burgold]

I got to be careful here, because I don't want my hundredth post to be off topic, but I just wanted to add a last thought.

Art, now that I understand where you are coming from I find it a bit less dangerous, though perhaps still a little scary. We just come from a different side of cynism. I completely agree that there is a problem of operational definition and agreement in terms. This, as we have now agreed, does not indicate that there is no problem, just that it has not been adequately identified and that a concensus of scientific opinon has been reached. This, we can also agree could potentially result in the discovery that there is no problem or that the problem is not significant in its ability to do damage to humans or the general ecology.

Fan Since '62, you attacked one of my favorite subjects and unfortunately you took the side I usually take. There is a phenomenol ammount of bad science out there. Whether due to experimental confounds, misapplied statistical analysis, and biases or the personal agendas of government or a corporation/industry. The results of this bad science has led to a tremendous degree of waste (time, money and resourses). Where we differ, I think, though I'm not entirely sure is in the issue of personal responsibility. I believe that attempting to deal with a problem before it reaches tragic levels is taking personal responsibility, hence my advocation for prevention. Moreover, why I expressed a need for carpooling, mass transit, and other efforts that can be done on a micro level. Now, if you are suggesting that the personal responsibility needs to be taken by the industries that are causing the problems in emmissions.... I don't disagree, but I have a lack of faith in their altruism over their greed or at least their pursuit of self-interest. Which is why I think that government should also have a role to play in this issue.

As to the issue of the EPA, I truly understand, I have friends and family who work for the NIH and have seen/overheard some interesting gamesmanship. I have also seen people stand tough and weather enough abuse that their contrary findings were verified and proven correct. This, of course ties in with your and Art's argument that there should be concensus. I agree that concensus is best. However, concensus is not always correct. We know this. Art's example of the flat Earth is as good an example as any.

I also believe, that prevention and institution of new systems would generate a ton of money, by both creating savings and implementing, constructing new materials in the long run.

Your point about the previous fuel arguments is very strong. You may be completely correct in that and in that the source of this research is the furthering of interests. I don't know.

In the other microscope though, I believe that if you put enough toxins into a system eventually you will generate a negative or potentially lethal result. I think the real question is, am I overestimated the human capacity towards destruction or are you underestimating it. I believe humans are fully capable of tremendous destruction, whether it is on human terms (spread of disease that wiped out whole civilizations) or ecological (hunting animals to extinction or changing habitats also causing extinction), I further believe that sometimes this destruction is done innocently and sometimes with malice. I also believe that at various times, humans have waited too long before changing their habits with the results being very bad. This is not to say the results of human mischief (bad word choice) is not irreversable and that with enough time and work the Saharra dessert, for example, will repair itself (I'm not saying that the expansion of the desert is completely due to man either, just that we helped). I wouldn't mind being wrong about the human potential for destruction and I can't really argue that acting precipitously can sometimes be as dangerous as acting too late. Well, I could, but it wouldn't be sincere. Hopefully, we can at least agree to keep our minds and eyes open.

Someday, I'll learn to be consise.