Discuss why the US Global warming debate is less accurate than in Japan and Britain for example and explain the reasons:
- strong bipartisanship which turned a scientifical debate into a political one ?
- unsufficient scientifical education of the citizens ?
- specific high share of oil-related sectors in the US economy ?
- stronger lobbyist and interest groups ?
- partisan medias ?
- unrealistic environmentalists (in other developped countries, most of the people are much more enviro-friendly, but they are no hippies either) which are more of a caricature than a real solution ?
- low understanding of the cost / benefit analysis ?
- short term oriented economy and vision ?
- reluctance to international cooperation and solutions in a self-centered country ?
- lack of unbundling between politics and business (Inhoffe and Al Gore as example for both sides) ?
Ok give me your contributions To Eric: your source is contradicting you and I quote:
The Committee heard from several scientific witnesses on the theory. No one disputes the fact of temperature rise in the last 100 years or so. No one disputes that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and few dispute that it has an enhanced "greenhouse effect". What is disputed, albeit by a minority of scientists, is the scale of this effect. Maybe it is because when this topic became politically correct a few years ago, NASA has temperature figures from around the world that refute and shatter the warmists view. In an invitation only meeting to discuss global warming, NASA was not invited probably because their numbers would not fit into the politically correct format. Also where temperatures were taken over the years has not been at similar places. Temperature numbers from years ago were gathered in open fields but now are generally gathered in metropolitan areas where the heat from buildings and pavement will increase the temperature readings. Not apples to apples. I wonder why that is not taken into consideration. I'd give you my views, but you just called me an un-educated self-centered moron. The world global warming debate is all a bit off. In the U.S. the many problem is the creating to parties that hang out at the extremes. They pick and choose data to support there argument. They also refuse to find middle ground. Then why does the house of Lords in England also cast doubts?
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa...
There are hundred of scientists who doubt climate change. It is very cynical to say that these people, and politicians are driven by money,do not have a conscience and do not care about the fate of their children and grandchildren and humanity in general.
You can have all of the theories, but those theories must be backed up by evidence. According to the climate models we should have seen a temperature rise of 3 degrees celcius during the past 150 years, we have only seen 0.6. That leads me to conclude they are biased on the up side.
If you want to talk about politics, why do scientists get harassed and even given death threats for apposing the global warming theory?
Lets look at the politics of the UN's IPCC:
According to Professor Reiter, none of the lead authors had ever written a paper on malaria, the chapter contained serious errors of fact, and at least one of the chapter's authors continues to make claims about warming and malaria that cannot be substantiated. Professor Reiter's concerns extend to the same chapter in the Third Assessment Report of 2001, where he was initially a contributory author. While he expresses far more confidence in this chapter than the equivalent one in the Second Assessment Report, Professor Reiter notes that "the dominant message was that climate change will result in a marked increase in vector-borne disease, and that this may already be happening". In Professor Reiter's view, no such conclusion is warranted by the evidence, and he speaks as a malaria specialist of more than thirty years' experience. While nominated by the US Government to serve on the comparable group for the Fourth Assessment Report, the next one that will appear from IPCC, Professor Reiter learned that his nomination had not been accepted by IPCC. Yet Professor Reiter tells us that of the two lead authors for that chapter, one had no publications at all and the other only five articles.
Then you have Chris Landsea who left the IPCC. Here are some quotes from his letter of resignation:
I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.
I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin.
It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth鈥檚 role as the IPCC鈥檚 Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.
I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author; I was told that that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth's unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.
You can read the whole article here http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/promet...
This is what doctor baker said the the House of Lords committee. "governments鈥o have a say in the Summary for Policy Makers [which is] taken extremely seriously by governments, and it is a line-by-line acceptance, and each word can count, and the process can actually collapse if governments will not accept a particular phrasing, a particular word".
The above evidence leads me to believe that the IPCC is not a scientific body, but a political and has a bias towards the supporters of global warming theory.
Edit: A classic example of global warming alarmists taking words out of context. I urge people to read the full report and decide for themselves. By the way this is a conclusion of theres: "But the science of climate change remains debatable. We heard from witnesses who seemed in no doubt at all about the science, while others expressed one or more of the above concerns. That makes it clear that the scientific context is one of uncertainty, although as the science progresses these uncertainties might be expected to diminish and be resolved, one way or the other. Hence it is important that the Government continues to take a leading role in supporting climate science, and encourages a dispassionate evidence-based approach to debate and decision making." Thank you proving my point that a lot of the
rhetoric is nothing but propaganda. And you are assuming that none of these factors are in play in other parts of the world. From what I have seen, most of these, especially the political ones, are much more in play in the EU than in the US. This is because the basic political philosphy in most of Europe favors massive government involvement in the lives of citizens, where as in the US, the basic political philosophy is one of personal choice with minimal government meddling.
I also doubt that the overall scientific education of citizens is any less in the US than in other locations. In fact, it is probably greater.
Finally, there is no such word as unsufficient. |
