Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Platapus
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/....ap/index.html
Cheney wanted testimony cut, ex-EPA official says
Vice President Dick Cheney's office pushed for major deletions in congressional testimony on the public health consequences of climate change, fearing the presentation by a leading health official might make it harder to avoid regulating greenhouse gases, a former EPA official maintains.
I hold both sides equally guilty in this.
The debate on the many related issues about Global Warming need to continue. There is dissent and I don't think all the information has been reviewed and examined. The issues (multiple) are too complex for a one sentence answer.
We simply can't appropriately address this problem if
1. The "pro" Global Warming people are selective about what data and which models are being used
2. The "con" Global Warming people are selective about what data and which models are being used
We need to explore ALL hypothesis, identify ALL applicable data, evaluate ALL the models for accuracy, review ALL the different analyses on this topic, analyze all the analytical methodologies used, academically review ALL reports independently so we can find out:
a)What are the hypotheses?
b)What are the possible states of each hypothesis?
c)What are the probable states of each hypothesis?
d)What indicators support which hypothesis?
e)What indicators refute which hypothesis?
f)What are our options?
g)What are our reasonable options?
h)What are the means of implementing these options?
So the various governments can make a logical, complete, and accurate assessment and decision.
Let's do this and do it completely and do it logically.
|
A brief summation of my opinions on this issue; (subtopic alphebetization added to your quote for clarity)
a) Global warming is caused by man vs. global warming is natural vs. There is no global warming does not exsist.
b) Too many to enumerate. It ranges from "catastrophe imminent" to "are you kidding me?"
c) 1) Global temperatures show a variable, but steady increase since mankind has industrialized.
2) 1 is true but this is part of a pattern that has been around much longer than mankind.
3) This whole thing is bunk
d) 1) see c1
2) see c1
3) see
Oxford English Dictionary entry for
"oblivious
"
e) 1) Climatological history of the Earth
2) "Common sense" and disregard for climatological precedents
3) Doing research
f) 1) Driving hybrid cars and reducing pollution. Calling Captain Planet. Reducing Carbon footprint. Destroying economies or changing them so radically as to destroy them for a significant period.
2) Trust in science and adaptability
3) Let our kids worry about it. Or grandchildren. Or whatever.
g) 1) Supposedly if we all drive hybrids and look for "alternative" energy sources and become hippies and all look out for the planet this will go away. Frankly I have never seen a viable solution.
2) see f2
3) see f3
h) 1) Oppressive worldwide government
2) Market adaptability and individual freedom
3) Stop thinking about it
I'll admit that my views are biased in favor of the view global warming is a natural function, as is cooling and whatever else. I have yet to see a reasonable argument that stands in the face of accumulated data from core samples and the like.
That being said, I intended to post a link to a youtube video of a John Stossel piece that makes a good counterpoint to the "universally accepted" view that global warming is because of us. Sadly my internets is acting up and I will have to double-post or edit. Thanks for undestanding.
edit---here's the link;
2nd edit-- I had to include this as biased as it is against the "green" faction in this debate. Kennedy makes a terrible attempt at defending this position;