The Observation Deck

I guess I don't understand how cleaning up the environment, developing alternative energy sources and basically making sure the next generation inherits a cleaner planet is a bad thing. Instead of worrying about what other nations won't do, we need to focus on our own society and lead by example. I say we give that a try since he can only lead to something better.

Actually, I think that the Creator is very much in the front seat of things, although how we poor mortals interpret things is pitiful indeed.

Up to a point, I've done the best I could to pluck that banjo of mine and to try and help swing the 'Deck's pendulum back to the middle, after people from both ends of the political spectrum have had their say.

I understand and recognize everyone's rights to opinions on matters political.

But this time, I have to express my opinion. The environment is a matter of public health and safety, and it's time that scientific facts were examined and respected, without the taint or censor of political correctness, left or right.

The extent and origins of aspects of global "warming" might be debatable in their particulars, (as indeed, are all scientific hypothesies) but if we were to consider global DAMAGE to our environment due to humankind's interference, that's another matter altogether.

It does not take a statistician or a scientist to observe the damage to hundreds of animal species lost or depleted over the last several hundred years, due to humankind's encroachment on the environment.

It does not take a statistician or a scientist to see that the depletion of the rain forests of the earth correspondingly can cut into oxygen production for the planet; not to mention the potential for disruption of weather patterns and ozone protection.

It does not take a statistician or a scientist to see the damage done to our lakes and rivers and to our air and waters- or what that has done to our food supply, not to mention the possible correlation of toxic carcinogens to certain disrupted biomes.

Nor sadly, is all this a recent concern in our world. Think Sahara Desert, or what happens when we divert streams and rivers, (like Egypt's Nile, or our own Mississippi's pathway through New Orleans) or permit unfettered economic considerations to have free reign over science. Think about it and draw your own conclusions.

It is so important that America NEVER AGAIN pursues potentially damaging national environmental policies for simplistic polemically political or short-term economic reasons. To do so can invite ruin and peridition for generations to follow, and certainly sets a poor example for the rest of the world to follow.

Economics and the environment can, and indeed must certainly co-exist in the world of the future.

All, just my opinion, and I may be wrong.

But I very much doubt it, in this case at least.

Jim DeVito wrote:Bill, come on man. "Since there is now overwhelming evidence that manmade global warming is a myth"

Can I have some of what you are smoking?

This is why I am glad to see the repubs go. Perhaps now science can be allowed back in the white house and jesus allah buda... can take a back seat.

The science of Al Gore is not science. It is religion. Al Gore and other members of the Cult of Global Warming view those who dispute their opinions as heretics. He and others want to make it a crime to disagree with this new cult. Now THAT is a perversion of science in the name of religion.

The facts:

1. Global warming stopped in 1999.
2. The Earth is getting colder.
3. At the height of the last warming period the Earth was no warmer than it was 1,000 years ago.
4. The Antacrtic ice sheet reached record levels last year.
5. This year Arctic ice levels are greater than any time in the last 6 years and not much different than the levels recorded 30 years ago.

The great global warming scam has nothing to do with environmentalism.



http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-e ... igion.html

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=180#comment-20487

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Arctic_ ... e_2002.pdf

Bill,

Crichton's speech framed up the premise for religious transference very well. I find it very difficult to disagree with his assessment, particularly the political influence over science part.

He took enormous heat for daring to question and for actually basing his convictions on facts shared by reputable scientific publications and scientists. He never said that his was the only truth, but because he looked for a more humbled, realistic, non-fanatical approach, he was chastised by the enlightened.

He's correct that rigidity has not served us well, even with best intentions, the track record is not good. He's also correct that his logic will only sway a few free thinking folks who have not joined the fundamentalist movement of environmentalism.

This is the important part. Questioning things like global warming is not automatically saying that polluted waters, rampant chemistry (love canal, et al.), polluted air, etc are all okay and we should do nothing about them. If you read it without bias, his real point is not about the simple binary of for or against environment. He recognized the complexity of these systems and pleads for more sanity and less bumper sticker science.

I hope environmental responsibility can become a constructive, rational dialog and plan based on ever changing facts and intelligence. But as he stated, facts have no business in religion, only faith. So if doom and gloom are in the forecast, one can't argue with predictions and prophecy.

He died last week of cancer. May he rest in peace.

.

Bill Call wrote:Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant and the minuscule amount of carbon dioxide produced by American cars has no affect on climate.

The amount of carbon dioxide humans put into the atmosphere is far from minuscule.

Carbon dioxide was originally a very tiny proportion of the atmosphere, so every bit that we add makes a big difference. An analogy I read recently referred to it as pouring a bucket of water into an already full bathtub. Meanwhile, as you mentioned water vapor awhile back, there is already TONS of water vapor in the atmosphere, so our adding to that does very little - like adding a bucket of water to the ocean.

And I'm not sure how you figure that the climate is cooling as of 1999, as I have read multiple times that the last few years are among the hottest on record and have included several devastating heat waves that have killed many people in the US and Europe.

Heather----Please be advised that Bill "invents" facts. He apparently enjoys the disruption that a provocative post causes without accepting any responsibility for its destructive consequences.
Stan Austin

Hmmm. Hard to argue with rational discussion Bill. The glass or bathtub or whatever, is not only half full, it's overflowing.

American cars are the least of our problems. Lets' consider them all cleaned up in 2 years and running on pure propane. Now, go put up little signs all over China and India chastising those nasty polluters. Good luck with that. We feel their pain because the wind is coming from China - and it's only just begun to really blow.

But hey, it's our fault. We created Walmart

Dustin James wrote:Hmmm. Hard to argue with rational discussion Bill. The glass or bathtub or whatever, is not only half full, it's overflowing.

As you pointed out earlier, the global warming hysteric equates skepticism about manmade global warming with a desire for dirty air and water. The real problem they have is that you are challenging their faith. (A post for another day is how environmentalism harms the environment).

Global warming “scienceâ€

Bill, as a part of the nay-saying minority in America (I heard Republicans called today the "Party of Nay-sayers" and I thought how apropos that sounds... ) what are your problems with more gas efficient cars, recycling, and overall the generation of less waste in the world?

Conservatives forget their name when it is a topic that gets them hot under the collar. Conservation is an idea borne of common sense. If you can make 10 sheets of paper with less newly destroyed trees today than you did 10 years ago then that is good, right? If you can use less gasoline to drive the same distance that would have used more gas, that is a good thing, right? So what if most of the scientific community have studies that show Global Climate Change (a term that long ago replaced the misnomer "Global Warming" by the way...)? I mean really, who cares? If you spend less on your heating bills some day because we have found ways to produce energy with more renewable sources of energy that are home grown (wind, solar, hydro, etc.) great, right?

What part of "Conservation" and "Conservative" don't mesh? If the end result is more efficiency, isn't that an outcome that a Conservative would cherish? Homes that require less fuel to heat and cool, cars that run on less fuel, factories that don't cloud the skyline with soot and ash...what part of that...Global Climate aside...doesn't appeal to the supposed Conservative in you?

Here is how I look at a similar consideration. Some people believe in a magical being in the sky who created everything out of nothing and bestows upon us laws that if we don't follow we will end up in a fire burning and in pain forever and ever.

If someone's belief in that keeps a person from hurting me or taking my stuff or...er...working on a Sunday, who cares? The fact that a person believes in magical thinking makes little difference to me if the end result is a citizen I can feel happy and safe living shoulder to shoulder as neighbors. I don't need the threat of hellfire and damnation to keep me from running rampant but the end result is the same.

So if you equate science with religion and these wacky science faithful use Global "Warming" as their reason for making the planet a cleaner, cheaper and more efficiently run then what is the problem with that? Am I missing something?

it is easier to deny global warming than to deny immediate problems. (it is also easier to embrace global warming to avoid more immediate problems)

the immediate problems are addiction to sprawl, globalism, and big box retail. this equals oil addiction. it is hard to get angry at this without encountering limitations to the ideals that enabled sprawl, globalism, and big box retail. Put it out of your mind and concentrate on C02 emissions.

ryan costa wrote:it is easier to deny global warming than to deny immediate problems. (it is also easier to embrace global warming to avoid more immediate problems)

the immediate problems are addiction to sprawl, globalism, and big box retail. this equals oil addiction. it is hard to get angry at this without encountering limitations to the ideals that enabled sprawl, globalism, and big box retail. Put it out of your mind and concentrate on C02 emissions.

Good point. Didn't think of it that way.