Senior Member
The Politicization of Climate Science
The difference between the way liberals/Democrats and conservatives/Republicans think about climate change/global warming has to do with their political philosophies. Studies have demonstrated (see reference below) that liberals/Democrats are more likely to hold beliefs about climate change/global warming that are consistent with the scientific consensus and express personal concern about global warming than are conservatives/Republicans.
When the environmental movement, mainstream climate scientists, and environmental policy-makers first defined climate change/global warming as a legitimate problem deserving of attention in the early 1990s, there emerged an immediate coordinated anti-environmental countermovement that was spearheaded by conservative foundations, think tanks, and politicians. The conservative world saw it as a threat, and sought to de-legitimize global environmental problems, particularly anthropogenic global warming, in order to undermine the call for regulatory action. Both the fossil fuels industry and its business allies, along with conservative think tanks (with the support of oil/coal companies and conservative foundations) worked to debunk the scientific evidence for climate change/global warming.
The conservative anti-environmental movement promoted a small number of “contrarian” scientists to challenge mainstream science as part of its broader efforts to debunk the reality and seriousness of climate change/global warming. When Republicans gained control of Congress in 1994, the new majority immediately challenged environmental science and policy. Republican Congressional leaders launched an all-out assault on climate science, and promoted contrarian scientists with no peer-reviewed publications to debunk peer-reviewed work of mainstream scientists.
The result was that newspapers in the United States were more likely to portray climate science as “uncertain” than were those in other developed nations; and the American public became less knowledgeable about the causes of climate change/global warming and less supportive of environmental policies.
The election of George W. Bush and the ascendance of his conservative administration heightened the politicization of climate change/global warming; and Bush administration insiders engaged in practices to challenge climate science in order to undermine the need for policy action.
At the same time the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Al Gore received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts to increase public knowledge about climate change/global warming; and the right (conservative think tanks, media figure like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, and Congressional Republicans) along with the Bush White House, continued its all-out assault on climate science and policy. The conservative efforts escalated in response to the Obama administration’s receptivity to climate science and policy, through heavy lobbying from industry.
The reason is that conservatives tend to justify the established system, whereas liberals are more amenable to critique it. For conservatives, policies that curb greenhouse gas emissions are viewed as a direct threat to sustained economic growth, the spread of free markets, the maintenance of national sovereignty, and the continued abolition of governmental regulations. They question the scientific consensus on climate change/global warming because it highlights the negative consequences of industrial capitalism.
The way you think about environmental policy is in a large part the result of your political orientation and your exposure to information and understanding of it. Your values, ideology, and experiences form the foundation of how you perceive and interpret issues. However, your political orientation is the key factor. What happens is that you rely selectively on information from partisan leaders who you trust, and not credible scientists who are experts in climate studies. It all gets filtered politically.
The American media disproportionately reports on the uncertainty and supposed controversy in climate science. The Left promotes mainstream scientific knowledge regarding climate change/global warming, while the Right regularly challenges scientific knowledge by promoting the views of a handful of contrarian scientists. You perceive all of this through pre-existing political beliefs on climate change/global warming.
If you’re liberal, you get your news from NPR, MSNBC, and the New York Times; and follow people like Al Gore, where you’re more likely to hear favorable messages about the reality and significance of climate change/global warming; whereas if you’re conservative you’ll most likely get your news from conservative talk radio, FOX News, and the Wall Street Journal, and follow people like Senator James Inhofe.
Political party identification/orientation moderates your beliefs about climate change/global warming, and your understanding/concern about it. The reality, the truth, about how humans have affected the planet negatively though emissions since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and what will happen to life on Earth in the future if we don’t act now, is lost in all this politicization of the issue. Don’t rely on information from partisan figures or talking heads that you agree with. Instead, if you really want to know the truth, as Al Gore said, “an inconvenient truth,” about climate change/global warming, then find out what the consensus is among actual climate/atmospheric scientists.
(See The Politicization of Climate Change and Polarization in the American Public’s Views of Global Warming, 2001-2010, by Aaron M. McCright and Riley E. Dunlap in the Spring 2011 issue)
http://environment.arizona.edu/files...lap%202011.pdf
Board Adminstrator
Senior Member
Drilling a mile down in the ocean for oil is pretty stupid when there was an alternative area to drill for oil in Alaska. The environmental movement, led by the global warming people, opposed ANWAR and were responsible for the greatest environmental disaster in the history of the world, (maybe Chernoble was close). The Gulf of Mexico is polluted with oil due to their policies.
The fact is that we currently need gas to run our cars. The obvious idea of the Obama Administration/Global Warming Environmentalist is to change the U.S. into electric vehicles, by stopping all production of oil into gas, therefore forcibly raising the price of gasoline.
Gas is at $4.29 per gallon. When President Obama was elected President 3 1/2 years ago the price of gas was $1.79. The past policies of the Democrats have created a shortage of the gasoline supply and that is the reason the price has tripled in 3 1/2 years. They are happy that the price of gas has risen and you are paying for for it!
In California we are about to spend BILLIONS OF DOLLARS on the "BULLET TRAIN." This "BULLET TRAIN" will go from Los Angeles to the Bay Area. It will cost more then either flying in a plane or driving in a car. We don't need "BULLET TRAINS" that are much more expensive than flying, we need to have public transportation in the cities that run on electricity. We need solar panels in the California desert, and wind power to increase the electricity in the power grid. Sadly, the real problem is that there are too many rich people that are environmental hypocrites like Al Gore, people on the LEFT, that do not practice what they preach. Their ideas are too extreme. We need a President that is more of a Moderate on these issues!
Last edited by easeltine; 05-14-2012 at 03:01 PM.
*
Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not unto your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will direct your path.
Paid Member
Climate Change and Liberalism is a Cult
I say Climate Change and liberalism are cultic. I've seen liberals who are so set in their ways that the they don't want to bother the think for themselves just like those in cults.
Al Gore owns 4 mansions, maybe only 2 after his divorce. He flies in a large jet to warn the world of global warming.
Obama speaks of austerity but he and his family fly everywhere it TWO jumbo jets. They speak of eating a healthy diet, but rarely follow the dietary standards they want the rest of us to. Obama crippled the energy industry and the economy in the name of saving the planet.
I'm not buying any of their agruements. They have huge carbon footprints. Michelle shops excessively--bad for the environment, also.
Last edited by bramble; 05-14-2012 at 05:21 PM. Reason: Change it back!
--God is Love--
Bramble
Senior Member
Hi Easeltine. You wrote that the “environmental movement” and “global warming people” were “responsible for the greatest environmental disaster in the history of the world," and that “the Gulf of Mexico is polluted with oil due to their policies.
Huh? Are you talking about the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill? If you are, how in hell are people belonging to the environmental movement and atmospheric/climate scientists responsible?
According to the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling Report published in January of 2011, the fault was with BP, Halliburton, and Transocean who used cheap material to cut costs. And you’re blaming environmentalists and climate scientists? Holy cow, Easeltine! This is exactly what I’m talking about in this thread, how climate change is politicized; and how the Right engages in politically-motivated propaganda. Thanks for demonstrating this.
http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/si...dent_FINAL.pdf
Then you blame the President of the United States and Democratic policies for the price of gasoline at the pump by “creating a shortage of gasoline supply.” Easeltine, the President doesn’t control the price of gas. Price increases have to do with the world crude-oil market, and growing demand that at times outpaces refinery capacity. Another factor is when, in the spring, refineries perform maintenance. This affects the gasoline market, but by the end of May refineries are usually back to full capacity. World events, wars and weather can also raise prices; anything that affects any part of the process from the moment oil is drilled through refining and distribution to your car will result in a change in price.
You seem to believe that President Obama and “global warming environmentalists” are all plotting to “change the U.S. into electric vehicles by stopping all production of oil into gas, therefore forcibly raising the price of gasoline.” What do you base this on? What’s your evidence that President Obama wants to “stop the production of oil into gas" for political reasons? What in hell are you talking about? Then you add that piece of rhetoric that “they’re happy that the price of gas has risen and you are paying for it,” as if they’re all wringing their hands in glee because we pay more at the pump. Christ, is it possible for you to be more of a right-wing troll, Easeltine?
What you’re doing here is avoiding the subject of climate change/global warming through partisan rhetoric, instead of reading and trying to understand the science and evidence of human activity as it relates to emissions and the need for regulation. You did, however, mention the need for more and better public transportation based on electric motors, solar panels, and wind power; but the fact that you felt a need to end it with trying to demonize Al Gore and “people on the left” by calling them “environmental hypocrites” puts you in the category of one who politicizes climate science…which you so clearly demonstrated. You're a poster child for the subject of this thread.
Senior Member
Hi Bramble -- How can “climate change” be cultic? That doesn’t make any sense. The Earth’s climate has changed. That’s a fact. What’s “cultic” about that? Perhaps you mean “anthropogenic climate change,” defined as a change in global temperatures over time due to human activity. The idea that humans have changed the climate of our planet through emissions of greenhouse gases since the dawn of the industrial revolution is close to a well-established scientific consensus.
It’s a fact that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are rising, proven by direct measurement since the 1950s. We have tracked and we know how much fossil fuel has been burned and therefore how much carbon dioxide we have injected directly into the atmosphere. The Earth is warming, most of the warming over the past several decades can be attributed to human activities (burning of coal, oil, and natural gas for energy). What’s “cultic” about that?
You represent, as does Easeltine, the polarization along political lines of the fact of climate change/global warming. Scientific assessment has indicated that human-induced climate change and its impacts will continue for many centuries. There is nothing cultic about this. (Assessments from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. Global Change Research Program).
Seems to me that the right-wing anti-climate change/global warming faction is the cult here; and that you and Easeltine are part of that cult.
Senior Member
Right Wing Climate Change Denial
Though the reality and significance of anthropogenic climate change becomes stronger within the scientific community, it is increasingly contested in the political arena and wider society. This has resulted in a decline in public belief in global warming. Contrarian scientists, fossil fuels corporations, conservative think tanks, and various front groups have assaulted mainstream climate science and scientists for over two decades.
There’s been an intensified denial campaign building on the manufactured “Climategate” scandal and revelations of various relatively minor errors in the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, in an attempt to damage the credibility of climate science. The blows have been struck by a well-funded, highly complex, and relatively coordinated “denial machine.” It consists of those mentioned above as well as a bevy of amateur climate bloggers and self-designated experts, public relations firms, astroturf groups, conservative media and pundits, and conservative politicians.
The motivations of the various cogs of the denial machine vary considerably, from economic (obvious in the case of the fossil fuels industry) to personal (reflected in the celebrity status enjoyed by a few individuals); but the glue that holds most of them together is shared opposition to governmental regulatory efforts to ameliorate climate change, such as restrictions on carbon emissions. Sometimes these anti-climate change activists will claim there is no warming, that it’s not caused by humans, or it won’t be harmful. The theme that remains constant is “no need for regulations.”
The climate change denial community represents a staunch commitment to free markets and disdain of governmental regulations. They attack climate science and individual scientists in various venues and fashions, seeking to undermine the case for climate policy by questioning the scientific basis for such policies in the eyes of the public.
Climate change denial can be seen as part of a more sweeping effort to defend the modern Western social order, which has been built by an industrial capitalism powered by fossil fuels. Since anthropogenic climate change is a major unintended consequence of fossil fuel use, simply acknowledging its reality poses a fundamental critique of the industrial capitalist economic system.
Conservatives mobilized over fears that crystallized around climate change, as creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) by the United Nations Environmental Program and the World Meteorological Organization made an effort to develop a scientific basis for policy making. The mainstream conservative movement, embodied in leading foundations and think tanks, quickly joined forces with the fossil fuels industry (which recognized very early the threat posed by recognition of global warming and the role of carbon emissions) and wider sectors of corporate America to combat the threat posed by climate change as a problem for the pursuit of unbridled economic growth. In the process, this coalition took the promotion of environmental skepticism to a new level, attacking the entire field of climate science and launching attacks on such pillars of science as the importance of peer-reviewed publications. The result has been an evolution of environmental skepticism.
The conservative movement along with the fossil fuel industry quickly adopted the strategy of manufacturing uncertainty and doubt (perfected by the tobacco industry) as its preferred strategy for promoting skepticism regarding anthropogenic climate change. Contrarian scientists, with considerable support from industry and conservative think tanks, stressed uncertainty concerning global warming and human contributions to it. A growing army of opponents to carbon emissions reduction policies stepped up their attacks; and have broadened their tactics well beyond manufacturing uncertainty, increasingly criticizing peer-review, refereed journals, governmental grant making, scientific institution and the expertise and ethics of scientists.
The influence of the conservative media (echo chamber) has been well documented and has been credited with helping move the United States in a right-wing direction in recent decades. For right-wing talk radio commentators, most notably Rush Limbaugh, attacks on “environmental wackos” is standard fare, and climate change (and Al Gore) a favorite target. Fox News’ Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity consistently denigrate climate change by highlighting “Climategate” and critiques of the IPCC and providing frequent opportunities for contrarian scientists to disparage climate change, the IPCC, and climate scientists.
The conservative media assault on climate science also occurs in print media, especially conservative newspapers such as Murdoch-owned The Wall Street Journal (whose editorial pages have become a regular forum for climate change denial, indlcuing columns by contrarian scientists) and the New York Post and the Reverend Moon’s Washington Times. Climate change denial is also a regular feature in leading conservative magazines such as The Weekly Standard, National Review, and The American Spectator as well as online publications such as The American Thinker. Add in prominent conservative columnists like George Will and Charles Krauthammer (infamous for their erroneous statements about climate change), who reach vast newspaper audiences via national syndication, and the result is a barrage of assaults on climate science (and, increasingly, climate scientists) that not only inundates committed conservative audiences but also reaches a large segment of the general public.
Most conservative politicians have been highly skeptical of climate change from the outset, as accepting its reality challenges their faith in inevitable progress created by the free market and raises the specter of increased governmental regulations. Republicans in Congress have been eager hosts of contrarian scientists and a raft of other non-credentialed deniers from novelist Michael Chrichton to Lord Monckton. They have also called hearings to rebut and in some instances harass mainstream climate scientists.
The single most prominent Republican when it comes to climate change denial is Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, famous for claiming in a Senate speech that global warming is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.” When Inhofe was Chair of the Committee on Environment and Public Works he turned it into a bastion of climate change denial via its website run by Marc Morano and his frequent invitations to contrarian scientists to testify at Committee hearings. More recently he has called for a criminal investigation of leading climate scientists. The ease with which Inhofe and his Republican colleagues gain access to conservative media like Fox News provides yet another means for amplifying the messages of contrarian scientists in the conservative echo chamber.
The inauguration of George W. Bush institutionalized climate change denial throughout the most powerful branch of the U.S. government, allowing representatives of the fossil fuels industry to undermine climate science and policy from with the administration. For eight years the Bush administration used a variety of techniques, ranging from emphasizing the “uncertainty” of climate science and calling for “sound science” to suppressing the work of governmental scientists, to justify inaction on climate policy.
By the time it was replaced by the Obama Administration, most Republican politicians had followed its lead in questioning the seriousness of climate change. The predictable upsurge in denial activism and lobbying against climate policy that has occurred following the change in administrations, especially the embrace of denial among the more extreme elements of the Right (Tea Party supporters), has turned climate change denial into a litmus test for Republicans. As a consequence, even one-time sponsors of bipartisan climate legislation like John McCain and Lindsey Graham have had to back-pedal to appease Republican interest groups and supporters.
Organized climate change denial hasn’t been the sole factor in undermining efforts to develop domestic climate policies. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to conclude that climate change denial campaigns in the U.S. have played a crucial role in blocking domestic legislation and contributing to the U.S. becoming an impediment to international policy making.
Because of the perceived threat posed by climate change to their interests, actors in the denial machine have strived to undermine scientific evidence documenting its reality and seriousness. Over the past two decades they have engaged in an escalating assault on climate science and scientists, and in recent years on core scientific practices, institutions, and knowledge. Their success in these efforts threatens our capacity to understand and monitor human-induced ecological disruptions from the local to global levels.
(From The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, edited by John S. Dryzek, Richard B. Norgaard, and David Schlosberg, Oxford University Press, copyright 2011)
http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Handboo.../dp/0199566607
Senior Member
The Tale of Two Mansions
Snopes is owned by Liberals - Here is the real "Inconvenient Truth"
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp
President Bush practices environmentalism, he lives it, V.P. Al Gore is a phoney, a hypocrite.
These Liberal people like George Soros, V.P. Gore, and Michael Moore leave the largest Carbon footprint.
Around me in California are a bunch of Liberal Loonies that never practice what they preach on these subjects.
Rather then convert Los Angeles to electric transportation they focus on an unneeded "Bullet Train" from Los Angeles to the Bay Area. ...but that is OK...the FEDS and Dodge are going to help pay for it...thats right it is one of those make jobs projects, all you rich people that pay taxes are going to pay for it. The "Bullet Train" while millions remain on the streets of Los Angeles using gasoline.
The real President of G.M. needs to tell the presdent President of G.M. to make more Volts or he will fire him too!
Liberals express concern about Global Warming, but as a whole they do not practice what they preach.
Last edited by easeltine; 05-15-2012 at 03:02 PM.
*
Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not unto your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will direct your path.
Senior Member
Hi Easeltine. There you go again derailing the conversation away from the topic. An email you found at Snopes that compares George W. Bush’s ranch with Al Gore’s mansion has nothing to do with the subject of climate change/global warming, nor does it detract from what Al Gore and the IPCC revealed about it in “An Inconvenient Truth,” which won them a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. It does, however, make you one who politicizes the science of climate change instead of trying to inform youself about it. You're more interested in demonizing liberals than reading scientific literature.
The fact is that Earth’s climate has changed in many ways over geological time; but for the first time, over the past century, human activity has become a significant cause of climate change. By burning fossil fuels, cutting and burning forests, and engaging in other environmental-impacting activity, humans have changed the heat balance of Earth sufficiently that the global average temperature has moved outside the range that has characterized the 10,000 years of recorded human history.
Moreover, climate change will take place in the context of population increases and urbanization. As it says in Climate Changes in the United States, The Prohibitive Costs of Inaction, a paper from the Union of Concerned Scientists, “if global warming emissions continue unabated, every region in the country will confront large costs from climate changte in the form of damages to infrastructure, diminished public health, and threats to vital industries employing millions of Americans.”
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documen...f-inaction.pdf
As they say, climate change threatens our very way of life and our legacy to future generations.
Climate change is sometimes equated with "global warming," but it involves much more than temperature change. The human activities that cause temperature change set in motion a series of associated phenomena: sea level rise, loss of polar sea ice, melting of continental glaciers, changes in precipitation patterns, progressive shifting in the habitats of species and the boundaries of ecosystems, acidification of the oceans, and more. These changes increase risks to the planet’s life support systems.
Debating whether Al Gore is more hypocritical than George W. Bush is not going to help raise awareness of climate change and the need for policies that target carbon reduction, Easeltine. The World Health Organization estimated that worldwide climate change contributes to 160,000 deaths each year due to the increased prevalence of vector-borne diseases, food insecurity, and heat waves. By 2030, climate change is expected to lead to a fourteen percent increase in the number of people exposed to malaria in Africa, and the rate of people at risk from dengue world-wide is expected to double by 2070; and the 2003 summer heat wave led to the deaths of more than 70,000 people across Europe.
Impacts on human society are predicted to be widespread and potentially catastrophic, as water shortages, decreased agricultural productivity, extreme weather events, and the spread of diseases take their toll.
(Read Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life, by Kari Marie Norgaard, copyright 2011 MIT Press)
As is obvious, what you’re doing here, Easeltine, is demonizing liberals, as you always do, instead of looking at the science behind climate change. Again, this is exactly what the topic of this thread is addressing, the politicization of climate science; and you are a perfect example. You're more interested in bashing Democrats than confronting the reality of the potential catastrohic consequences of climate change due to human activity.
Paid Member
I paid 3.65/gal this morning, which is about average nationwide.Originally Posted by easeltine
Gas prices at the pump were the highest during the Bush term. The economy tanked near the end of his term and the demand for gas dramatically dropped, causing a short term glut and subsequent drop in pump price. Yes, gas prices were quite low when Obama took office, but on average, gas under Obama is not any higher than it was during the GW years.
Have a look at the 8 year history charts: http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx
You think Obama is trying to stop drilling? A few facts: http://zfacts.com/p/35.html
Active crude oil rigs have quadrupled under Obama.
Obama does not get or claim credit for all the drilling. But ...
1.He sure has let it rip.
2.Gas production in the US is way up during the Obama years
3.Amazing as it is, it did not bring gas prices down.
If there is a conspiracy it is the effort to slow down the research and development of alternative fuels. Simply adding to the supply does very little when worldwide demand is skyrocketing. I was not a fan of Jimmy Carter but he had one thing totally right. We needed to develop alternative fuels. He started a sound energy policy and budgeted billions of dollars for research & development. Had we continued with his research plan, by now we very likely wouldn't need any gas for cars.
In one quick swoop, Reagan gutted Carter’s entire multi-billion dollar energy efficiency effort. He opposed and then rolled back fuel economy standards. Reagan turned all such commonsense strategies into “liberal” policies that must be opposed by any true conservative, a position embraced all too consistently by conservative leaders from Gingrich to Bush/Cheney. At the time, I mistakenly agreed with Reagan. What a fool I was. Now I believe Reagan may have been among our worst presidents. He screwed up the economy and started the economic policies that got us where we are today. He gutted energy policies which made us much more dependent on foreign oil and subject to Middle East terrorists. And yet, he is the poster boy for the Republican Party.
Sure, most Democrats don't have it right either. But why don’t you complain about the failed energy policies of Reagan/Bush?
Senior Member
Hi Ba2 -- Easeltine’s only reason for posting in this thread (and any others) is to demonize liberals and atheists. This is his main purpose here at FACTnet. He’s a right-wing troll who enjoys yanking chains and rattling cages, and is more interested in contentious arguments than a search for truth.
What I would ask those like him is:
What is it you don’t understand about the science of climate change? The Earth’s climate is warming, scientists are certain that this has been caused by emissions produced by the burning of fossil fuels resulting in growing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These increasing quantities of greenhouse gases retain more and more of the sun’s heat, trapped by the carbon dioxide “blanket,” and this is causing temperatures to rise all over the world.
The fact is that our behavior is driving global temperatures up, and the daily increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will continue if nothing is done to decrease emissions. Most greenhouse gases are produced by burning coal to produce electricity; and the second worst offender is using gasoline and diesel for transportation, followed by burning oil to generate heat and electricity.
Another factor is the cutting down of much of the world’s forests to make way for farmland, highways, and cities. Deforestation is responsible for about a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions.
If you disagree with this, tell me why. Link to reputable expert sources, not partisan politicians. Look at the science behind climate change and then form an educated opinion instead of demonizing those who you dislike for political reasons.
Senior Member
“I study the history of climate science, and my research has shown that the think tanks and institutes that deny the reality or severity of climate change, or promote distrust of climate science, do so out of self-interest, ideological conviction or both. Some groups, like the fossil fuel industry, have an obvious self-interest in the continued use of fossil fuels. Others fear that if we accept the reality of climate change, we will be forced to acknowledge the failures of free-market capitalism. Still others worry that if we allow the government to intervene in the marketplace to stop climate change, it will lead to further expansion of government power that will threaten our broader freedoms.”
Quote from Naomi Oreskes, The Verdict is in on Climate Change.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan...hange-20120122
Dr. Oreskes is a science historian and professor of history and science studies at UC San Diego who earned her PhD in geological research and science history from Stanford. George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication named her "Climate Change Communicator of the Year 2011."
http://www.climatechangecommunicatio...mi_Oreskes.cfm
In being nominated for this award, she was described as having demonstrated “a deep grasp of the scientific basis for findings of a ‘discernible human influence’ on global climate,'" and “uniquely positioned as a science communicator given her understanding of both the physical processes which are in action in changing climate system, and the historical evolution of the scientific, political, social, and economic narratives in which climate change research is embedded.”
Dr. Oreskes was lead author on a seminal book entitled Merchants of Doubt, which disclosed how a small number of scientists worked at the behest of industrial partners to delay social action on smoking, acid rain, stratospheric ozone depletion, and climate change. She was able to identify a common “playbook” of messaging -- and messengers -- that resurfaced continuously in the U.S. as these four issues received political and public attention. She has made it clear to a wide audience that a relatively small organization of powerful individuals and corporations has effectively disseminated doubt (rather than knowledge) in pursuit of their own ideological agenda.
http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/
Experts in the field of climate change, working climate scientists, have come to view Dr. Oreskes as their champion. Her work has helped to expose the non-scientific pressures climate scientists have encountered during the course of their research.
Senior Member
Hi,
It isn't that I disagree that there is Global Warming, I just don't think it is that important an issue.
Thermal Nuclear Wars
Over Population
Shortage of Food Supply
Shortage of Water
Enough Money to Pay the Gas to Go to Work, ($4.39 in Los Angeles Ba2...lol).
These are all more important issue.
Boom with a Nuke...and after that who cares about this Global Warming bit.
...but no, global warming Hollywood tells us that all the land will be under water and we will be part of Waterworld.
Let's see...based on the amount of global warming there is in 70 years the water level of the ocean might raise from 3" to 12".
I DON'T CARE!
P.S. - Dodge, I have to check your facts up there on one of your posts. I have never really heard dangers like that from global warming before.
Last edited by easeltine; 05-17-2012 at 03:37 AM.
*
Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not unto your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will direct your path.
Senior Member
Hi Easeltine. You wrote that you don’t think climate change is “that important an issue.” Do you think you’re sufficiently informed about the science behind it to come to such a conclusion? I don’t know about you; but when I want to learn about a subject such as climate change I seek out the opinions of experts in the field, and do research to see what the general consensus is amongst relevant experts.
What if you found out that the vast majority of climate scientists agree that climate change/global warming is one of the most important issues that humanity faces? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has done this by assembling large writing teams of scientific experts, each one nominated for their expertise by the world’s governments. After writing what they know concerning climate change, their reports are then reviewed by other expert scientists, then undergo a public review and a separate review by the world’s governments. The IPCC then submits assessment reports that are widely regarded as the most authoritative statement of scientific knowledge about climate, and carry enormous weight in both the scientific and policy communities. In 2007, the IPCC shared the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of its work on the climate.
I learned about this while reading one of the acknowledged experts in the science of climate change, Andrew E. Dessler, in his book Introduction to Modern Climate Change (Cambridge University Press, copyright 2012). Dessler is a professor of atmospheric science who earned his PhD from Harvard University.
Dr. Dessler also points to the United States National Academy of Sciences as a source for reports and assessments of climate change, as well as statements put out by the scientific societies that climate experts belong to. Dr. Dessler tells us about a letter that was sent to the United States Senate in October of 2009 stating climate change is a serious problem facing the entire human race and that emissions of greenhouse gases have to be dramatically reduced for us to avoid the most severe impacts.
Signatories of this letter include the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Society of Agronomy, the American Society of Plant Biologists, the American Statistical Association, the Association of Ecosystem Research Centers, the Botanical Society of America, the Crop Science Society of America, the Ecological Society of America, the Natural Science Collections Alliance, the Organization of Biological Field Stations, the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, the Society of Systematic Biologists, the Soil Science Society of America, and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.
You can read that letter here:
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/20...ate_letter.pdf
“Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. Moreover, there is strong evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on society, including the global economy and on the environment. For the United States, climate change impacts include sea level rise for coastal states, greater threats of extreme weather events, and increased risk of regional water scarcity, urban heat waves, western wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems throughout the country. The severity of climate change impacts is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades.”
Still think that climate change is “not that important an issue?” If there is a consensus amongst relevant experts in the field of climate science, wouldn’t that make you change your mind?
I mentioned Naomi Oreskes in my last post. She wrote a piece called The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We’re Not Wrong?
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/resources...-chapter-4.pdf
In it, Dr. Oreskes tells us that today, “all but a tiny handful of climate scientists are convinced that earth’s climate is heating up and that human activities are a significant cause,” and that “all of the major scientific bodies in the United States whose membership’s expertise bears directly on the matter have issued reports or statements that confirm the IPCC conclusion.” She points to statements by the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science that agree human activity is responsible for the high levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and that is poses a serious problem.
Dr. Oreskes tells us that “the basic reality of anthropomorphic global climate change is no longer a subject of scientific debate,” that there is "overwhelming evidence that increasing greenhouse gas emissions are changing the climate,” and that “scientists have also documented that some of the changes that are now occurring are clearly deleterious to both human communities and ecosystems.”
The question is, as Dr. Oreskes points out, “if the scientific community has forged a consensus, then why do so many Americans have the impression that there is serious scientific uncertainty about climate change?” Part of that question is answered by pointing to “politically motivated think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute and the George Marshall Institute” who have been “active for some time in trying to communicate a message that is at odds with the consensus scientific view.” Dr. Oreskes goes on to say that “this message of scientific uncertainty has been reinforced by the public relations campaigns of certain corporations with a large stake in the issue,” such as ExxonMobil.
To avoid uninformed or misguided opinions, Easeltine, I would suggest you educate yourself by getting your information regarding climate change from reputable experts instead of from partisan politicians and organizations with vested interests in trying to convince the public that climate change “is not that important an issue.”
Senior Member
gas here is 329 and coming down
Paid Member
I don’t know why you laughed at my 3.65/gal gas. National average right now is 3.72/gal. I paid 3.65 yesterday and as I drove by the station today, it was 3.62. This page has a neat chart where you can type in your state and see the current average price http://zfacts.com/p/35.html
Another chart with a national average: http://fuelgaugereport.aaa.com/?redi....com/index.asp
Here is a very interesting chart showing the historical pump price adjusted for inflation. You will see that gas today really isn’t much more than at any time in history, when adjusted: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...t_fotw364.html
Gas price is a concern, too bad we let Reagan and my Republican Party gut the research & development allocations initiated by Carter. Once we get our head out of the sand and realize that “drill baby drill” is not the answer, we will start moving in the right direction. The fact is: we do not need fossil fuels and I don’t want us to move into biofuels.
Water is just about everywhere, there is no shortage. We just need to build desalination plants, just like Israel has done. All you need is the ocean and sunlight, which I believe California has in abundance. Your other concerns certainly are real. But so is global warming. If the ocean rose 12 inches, coastal cities around the world would be devastated, especially those without the financial means to protect the shores. We in the US would probably be okay. But millions around the world would suffer and probably die. Is this your plan on dealing with overpopulation?
Senior Member
Attachment 286
Here Ba2 - Here is the cheapest gas I can find in the entire Los Angeles area.
The remedy for Global Warming is to convert the metropolitan area transportation to electric vehicles. Once the United States leads in that direction the countries that have expanded in the amount of automobiles they have, (China and India), will follow our lead. We need to change to renewable energy. My relative is very big on electric vehicles, he has had a Toyota Electric SUV since 2002 with the same battery. The long term answer is not going to be to spend 2 million dollars to drill 2 miles down to shale, shoot water and sand in there, that is only a short term solution.
We can get rid of our dependence on foreign oil only by changing the automobile from gas to electric. We have the technology now throughout the United States to produce more electricity by focusing on regions of the U.S. that can supply renewable better than others. My relative showed me his PowerPoint presentation that shows different areas of the United States that we can get wind power, solar power, tidal power etc. to expand the U.S. Power Grid to do this.
I don't have a solution for Jet planes, (like Al Gore and Michael Moore like to travel in the private jets), but changing the world to renewable energy and electric would help slow down global warming and dependence on foreign oil. Sorry, but I just happen to believe that raising the price of gas is what the Obama Administration sees as a way to get people to go to another method of transportation, and I don't totally disagree with that idea.
The fact remains that the Department of Water and Power of Los Angeles is under 20% for renewable energy and 50% of all energy comes from burning coal to make electricity. To me, Liberal talk about changing these matters, but they do not do enough about it. It is something like 50% coal, 15% hydroelectric, 10% nuclear...but the point is that the figure is under 5% for both wind and solar combined. Change it! Don't just talk about the evils of global warming and continue to do nothing about it. I have noticed this power grid facts for over 10 years, and in this Liberal state I figure that these Liberals are just twiddling their thumbs, and talking the talk without walking the walk. I only have one kid, I have fuel efficient cars, my thermostat is kept at 80%...blast you Liberals my carbon footprint is much better that these people feeling guilty that they don't drive electric vehicles, instead they drive Range Rovers while talking to me, (2 weeks ago for example), how they should be driving an electric vehicle! These are the global warming people of the Hollywood Area...a bunch of hypocrites...just like Albert and Fat Mike!
Last edited by easeltine; 05-18-2012 at 04:41 AM.
*
Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not unto your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will direct your path.
Paid Member
Don’t disagree with anything here. I might go another step. If we tried to move to 100% electric cars, it would take many years before all current vehicles are off the roads, 20+ years. Even then, we would still have the issue of being limited to local driving. Nevertheless, I do support the concept. In another direction, once the infrastructure was in place, we could produce and distribute hydrogen gas all over the country. There would be an immediate surge in electric fuel cell autos being built and sold. And all current internal combustion vehicles could easily be converted to run on hydrogen gas within a few years. The cost to convert gasoline engines to hydrogen gas engines would not be a stumbling block and the building of infrastructure and conversion could be part of an economic stimulus package to pump up the economy. Eventually, even the internal combustion hydrogen gas engines would all be replaced with electric generating hydrogen gas fuel cells, which is more efficient. The key is to get started on the infrastructure. We need pipelines and hydrogen producing plants. Once they were in place, everything else would snap right into place.
Think about it. We produce all the hydrogen we need for fuel in this country. No more sending troops to the Middle East to protect oil reserves. No more dealing with the likes of Chavez. The jobs and money stay right here. Even if it ended up costing a little more to produce, all revenues stay here and help our economy.
Hydrogen can be produced with little more than salt water, electricity and a collection device. The electricity could be produced from the sun. In effect, once the plant was built, it would cost very little to produce. The feasibility is there. It can be done. The plants and pipelines would be expensive to build so it would take governmental help to get it going.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/2936846
At the moment, hydrogen is produced using the electric grid, which makes it quite expensive, but, again, why aren’t we putting significant resources into the development of these technologies? Who is benefiting keeping us on an oil economy?
I think most agree there is climate change but then disagree on what to do about it. The climate is always changing.
Senior Member
in some places here gas is 322 a gal with 3 cents off if you get a walmart card
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote