Originally Posted by
shanbaum
Crafter, I do not doubt that the Earth has had warming and cooling cycles, only because the scientific literature so asserts. That has almost nothing to do with the warming controversy. As I wrote earlier, you and I, like most people, are not climatologists. The vast majority of us don't even ever see any of the primary scientific materials. We rely on the handful of scientists who write for a lay audience, and on journalists, to form an understanding and/or opinion about scientific matters.
I can't put my finger on it at the moment, but one article (in a primary science journal) that I read analyzed articles about global warming in scientific journals. I don't recall the exact details, but the number of articles supporting anthropogenic warming was more than double the number of articles expressing scepticism. That doesn't mean that the supporters are right, but it does mean that they are very likely the majority.
I realize that in the right-wing media, the story is that the whole warming thing was cooked up by academics seeking grant money. A half-second's reflection dismisses that; if climate change is settled science (as the majority of actual scientists claim), there is no need for further grants for studies, is there? There's nothing left to prove! It would be the deniers who stand to gain at this point. As in, they're just arguing against the conventional wisdom in order to rake in all that grant money they need in order to disprove the anthropogenic nature of the warming that everyone agrees is taking place.
In reality, grants for studies amount to chicken feed either way. The big money is in doing something, or not doing something, about carbon emissions. And to suggest that it's the guys plying alternative energy sources (or academic studies of any sort) who have Congress by the balls - and not the carbon guys (y'know, like Exxon Mobil) - well, that requires a more fertile imagination than mine. As always, money drives the politics in this country, and it's useful to follow the money. (Hint: it doesn't lead to university campuses).
One of the things that inclines my opinion towards that of the majority is that it's pretty clear that human activity can have significant environmental impact. Back in the 70's and 80's, acid rain resulting from sulphur dioxide emissions was a known, measured problem. The Republicans came up with a cap-and-trade system that was implemented in the early 90's (by the first Bush) and the scheme actually worked. Acid rain has been diminished by 65% or more. (In Europe, more traditional regulation was actually more effective, but that's another story).
The other thing is simpler: if there is merely the possibility that the anthropogenic warming scenario is true, it would be suicidal to ignore it. And when the negative version of the cost/benefit analysis comes up with outcomes like, "we'll needlessly spend money trying to develop alternative fuels when we could be burning all these fossil fuels that we know we have" - well, that's not really very compelling to me; I think that having alternatives to what we know with some certainty are limited resources (whatever the magnitude of that limitation) would be a very good thing. If the worst case is money is directed towards people other than owners and developers of fossil fuels, even if the putative developers of alternatives are sometimes feckless, I think that is not so bad. It's not like the money goes away; it just travels a different route for a while.
What you think about these things is going to be determined by what you read and hear on the subject. Read Scientific American, or Nature, and you're likely to see it one way. If you form your opinions by listening to Rush Limbaugh and reading FreeRepublic.com, your opinions will differ. I will rely on the former; to me, the latter, by comparison, are risible. Sorry to be dismissive, but they don't even warrant serious criticism. They are ridiculous.
And yes, I do understand horsepower. My first car was a '67 Mustang GT. It started out with a 390 V8; I bought a 427 off a guy who crashed his racing boat and had it installed. Don't talk to me about some puny 5.8 liter cornpopper.
Bookmarks