[Zipperfish]

From Today's National Post:

Bad science: Global-warming deniers are a liability to the conservative cause

by Jonathon Kay

Quote:

Have you heard about the “growing number” of eminent scientists who reject the theory that man-made greenhouse gases are increasing the earth’s temperature? It’s one of those factoids that, for years, has been casually dropped into the opening paragraphs of conservative manifestos against climate-change treaties and legislation. A web site maintained by the office of a U.S. Senator has for years instructed us that a “growing number of scientists” are becoming climate-change “skeptics.” This year, the chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation gave a speech praising the “growing number of distinguished scientists [who are] challenging the conventional wisdom with alternative theories and peer reviewed research.” In this newspaper, a columnist recently described the “growing skepticism about the theory of man-made climate change.” Surely, the conventional wisdom is on the cusp of being overthrown entirely: Another colleague proclaimed that we are approaching “the church of global warming’s Galileo moment.”

Fine-sounding rhetoric — but all of it nonsense. In a new article published in the Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences, a group of scholars from Stanford University, the University of Toronto and elsewhere provide a statistical breakdown of the opinions of the world’s most prominent climate experts. Their conclusion: The group that is skeptical of the evidence of man-made global warming “comprises only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers in the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200, excluding researchers present in both groups … This result closely agrees with expert surveys, indicating that [about] 97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of [man-made global warming].”

...

Is the National Post going to drift back to the center under new ownership?

[Zipperfish]

Quote:

It is one of the most important debates of our time. Yet many conservatives have made themselves irrelevant in it by simply cupping their hands over their ears and screaming out imprecations against Al Gore.

The NP commenting ccommunity is going apeshit.

The Ecomomist, another conservatively-inclined magazine, recently came on board:

Quote:

Greenhouse gases still warm planets, carbon dioxide is still a greenhouse gas and the amount of it in the Earth’s atmosphere is still shooting up. The temperature rose over the 20th century in a way that follows from these basic truths. Other mechanisms at play in the climate complicate the issue, but none of them offers a remotely satisfactory alternative explanation for the temperature rise. It is impossible to say with certainty how bad the 21st century’s heating will be, but there is a large chance of it getting hot enough to do harm, and a far from trivial chance of things turning catastrophic. This makes moving away from fossil fuels a global priority." The Economist - July 8th

[Proculation]

The Economist, conservative ?? It's a very liberal newspaper.

[Choban]

Regardless of weather one group disagrees with the other, it is clear that since the industrial revolution we have been abusing our planet and if we do not take it into consideration eventually we will screw ourselves over.

I think the focus is going in the right direction, increased recycling, cleaner energy develoment ect..., it's not just global warming we need to worry about, we need to manage our reasources better and start taking care of our planet.

[Proculation]

Choban wrote:

Regardless of weather one group disagrees with the other, it is clear that since the industrial revolution we have been abusing our planet and if we do not take it into consideration eventually we will screw ourselves over.

I think the focus is going in the right direction, increased recycling, cleaner energy develoment ect..., it's not just global warming we need to worry about, we need to manage our reasources better and start taking care of our planet.

When people say we are going worst and worst environment, I say: Remember the 80's !

[JacobHarvey]

Well the truth that I'm spamming can't be denied. Also it is somewhere or the other disturbing our site. As a result there is an dramatic change in the tolerance. You can see the level of disastisfaction increasing.


I'm filth!

[Guy_Fawkes]

JacobHarvey wrote:

Well Global warming is a truth which can't be denied. Also it is somewhere or the other disturbing our environment. As a result there is an dramatic change in the temperature. You can see the level of ocean increasing.


Workstations kendall

Ooooh Sneaky Spam!

[andyt]

Proculation wrote:

The Economist, conservative ?? It's a very liberal newspaper.

Wow, what an argument. Don't address the issue at all, but quibble over how conservative or not the Economist is. Yeah, that's helpful.

[jeff744]

The argument isn't that we are contributing so much as how much we are contributing. There is also the issue of how long term we are thinking of before the earth changes enough degrees before we are unable to keep up with the populations being destroyed. If we have 100+ years then by then we will already have the technology to reverse the damage we are doing and almost stop our emissions. In 100 years we went from less than half a minute of flight to planning a manned mission to mars to follow up probes.

[andyt]

jeff744 wrote:

The argument isn't that we are contributing so much as how much we are contributing. There is also the issue of how long term we are thinking of before the earth changes enough degrees before we are unable to keep up with the populations being destroyed. If we have 100+ years then by then we will already have the technology to reverse the damage we are doing and almost stop our emissions. In 100 years we went from less than half a minute of flight to planning a manned mission to mars to follow up probes.

Now there's a good idea. Let's do nothing, the future will take care of it for us. And flying cars for all.

[jeff744]

andyt wrote:

jeff744 wrote:

The argument isn't that we are contributing so much as how much we are contributing. There is also the issue of how long term we are thinking of before the earth changes enough degrees before we are unable to keep up with the populations being destroyed. If we have 100+ years then by then we will already have the technology to reverse the damage we are doing and almost stop our emissions. In 100 years we went from less than half a minute of flight to planning a manned mission to mars to follow up probes.

Now there's a good idea. Let's do nothing, the future will take care of it for us. And flying cars for all.

No, we are just waiting for viable technology to come along and encouraging its growth. I don't know what math you are using but unless we use nuclear or dirty fuel we are not going to be able to maintain even a fraction of our current lives and advancement. Hell, I will see viable alternative fuel cars in my lifetime, once the gas guzzlers are gone we have just shut down a massive source of emissions. Nuclear fission is getting closer and we are also working on ways to take our carbon out of the air.

[eureka]

The problem with that, jeff, is what has become increasingly apparent. There is no technology even on a distant horizon that will make any impact.

It is now known that Bush and co. were not sceptics at all and realised the full extent of the danger - their own Pentagon had studies that confirmed it. But they thought that the answer lay in god old American knowhow and that America would develop the technologies to cure all the problems.

It did not happen and nothing has been found in the thirty years since it became a world challenging issue.

That has made certain that it is too late to do more than avoid catastrophe with a massive and costly effort. It could have been done at minimal cost years ago. The Stern Report concluded that a major effort at that time would cost 1% of world GDP to fix. IT gave estimates that ranged as high as 5% if left for a certain time - I forget the time frames. There would come a point that was left unsaid when no amount of money would save us.

We are probably looking at 2 or 3% now IF we act fast.

[BartSimpson]

Cool. Then the science is 'in' and ending the use of fossil fuels will help reduce global warming.

Good.

Canada can lead the way by shutting down your production of coal and oil. Feel free to start that effort by ending exports of coal and oil.

Your move.

[andyt]

See, as usual, the rich don't want to do their share. And as with drugs, the answer lies in reducing demand, not supply. Your move.

[jeff744]

eureka wrote:

The problem with that, jeff, is what has become increasingly apparent. There is no technology even on a distant horizon that will make any impact.

It is now known that Bush and co. were not sceptics at all and realised the full extent of the danger - their own Pentagon had studies that confirmed it. But they thought that the answer lay in god old American knowhow and that America would develop the technologies to cure all the problems.

It did not happen and nothing has been found in the thirty years since it became a world challenging issue.

That has made certain that it is too late to do more than avoid catastrophe with a massive and costly effort. It could have been done at minimal cost years ago. The Stern Report concluded that a major effort at that time would cost 1% of world GDP to fix. IT gave estimates that ranged as high as 5% if left for a certain time - I forget the time frames. There would come a point that was left unsaid when no amount of money would save us.

We are probably looking at 2 or 3% now IF we act fast.

Nuclear tech is here now but the greens in a stroke of brilliance decided that we can't use that one either. And we have come a long way towards viable alternatives, we have already started phasing in hybrids and believe it or not Alberta's oil sands are actually working to reduce their impact. Considering a couple decades ago the environment was almost never a major topic I would say we have been making a hell of a lot of progress.