CLIMATE SCIENTIST SURVEY REVEALS LITTLE CONSENSUS

A new survey of American members of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggests that there is not firm scientific consensus on global warming, as proponents of swift action to curb carbon emissions have suggested.

Of 54 scientists who completed a survey by DemandDebate.com, a website that advocates more debate on the topic:

Less than half said a 1-degree Celsius increase is "flatly undesirable;" and 61 percent of the respondents said there is no such thing as an "ideal climate."

While as many as 90 percent of respondents said man-made carbon emissions "are driving or helping to drive global climate change," only 20 percent said human activity is the "principle driver of climate change."

Some 63 percent said human activity is a driver but that "natural variability is also important."

Former Vice President Al Gore and other leading proponents of strong government action to reduce carbon emissions -- who cite catastrophic predictions of the effects of climate change -- have repeatedly said that "the debate is settled" and that there is "scientific consensus" on the causes and potential effects of warming.

But Steve Milloy, writer of the blog "Junk Science" and executive director of DemandDebate.com, says this survey casts doubt on that claim. There's reason to ask these people more questions, says Milloy. Al Gore is rushing to close the debate because the more data we get, the flimsier the science gets.

Climate Scientist Survey Reveals Little Consensus -- 11/15/2007

__________________
"If capitalism had never existed, any honest humanitarian should have been struggling to invent it. But when you see men struggling to evade its existence, to misrepresent its nature, and to destroy its last remnants - you may be sure that whatever their motives, love for man is not one of them." - Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

Coyote Blog


New Law Trashes Genetic Science

While as many as 90 percent of respondents said man-made carbon emissions "are driving or helping to drive global climate change," only 20 percent said human activity is the "principle driver of climate change."

This seems to be a contradiction.

Try not thinking in black and white terms. Try thinking “gray area.”

__________________
"If capitalism had never existed, any honest humanitarian should have been struggling to invent it. But when you see men struggling to evade its existence, to misrepresent its nature, and to destroy its last remnants - you may be sure that whatever their motives, love for man is not one of them." - Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

Coyote Blog


New Law Trashes Genetic Science

That "gray area" seems to be saying 90% agree that man is having a definite influence on climate change. The only disagreement is to what degree. I'd call that a general consensus.

Correct, man has something to do with the warming over the past half century. But there is not a lot that can be done to stop global warming at this time. We do not yet possess the suite of technologies that do anything significant to stop global warming.

__________________
"If capitalism had never existed, any honest humanitarian should have been struggling to invent it. But when you see men struggling to evade its existence, to misrepresent its nature, and to destroy its last remnants - you may be sure that whatever their motives, love for man is not one of them." - Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

Coyote Blog


New Law Trashes Genetic Science

What is your point then...?

You are not understanding what I have said, this is a matter of manipulating language I think.

So are you proposing that we do something to develop alternative energy solutions, and develop contingency plans to deal with the developing situation?

As Cat said, what is your point?

__________________
"If you're going to tell people the truth, be funny or they'll kill you." -- Billy Wilder

"Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied." -- Otto Von Bismark

If I do not understand what you said, than please elaborate. What kind of language manipulation do you speak of?

__________________
"If capitalism had never existed, any honest humanitarian should have been struggling to invent it. But when you see men struggling to evade its existence, to misrepresent its nature, and to destroy its last remnants - you may be sure that whatever their motives, love for man is not one of them." - Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

Coyote Blog


New Law Trashes Genetic Science

Yes, I think investment for R&D in renewable energy, alternative fuels, efficient technology, and climate engineering is essential for the future, and far more effective than cutting CO2 emissions. The best way to do this would be to cut the corporate tax from 38% to something like 15%. Some say the government should fund the R&D but I don’t believe the government has a good track record in energy development.


We also have to recognize that global warming is not the only problem facing humanity, it’s not even the most dangerous problem facing humanity. Some of the problems include malnutrition, diseases (especially HIV/AIDS), sanitation, impure drinking water, etc. And it’s easy to say, “we should work to solve all those problems” and I agree, but as you are aware financial resources are limited so we have to ask “which problems do we solve first? Logically we should try to solve the problems were the money will do the most good, investing $1 to help prevent the spread of AIDS or reduce global hunger will do a lot more good that spending the same $1 to cut CO2 emissions. Click here for more.

__________________
"If capitalism had never existed, any honest humanitarian should have been struggling to invent it. But when you see men struggling to evade its existence, to misrepresent its nature, and to destroy its last remnants - you may be sure that whatever their motives, love for man is not one of them." - Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

Coyote Blog


New Law Trashes Genetic Science