Alaska congressional delegation doubts scientists' conclusions

[chanoc]

Ignorant Repubilcans at it again, denial, denial, denial. :rolleyes:

link (http://adn.com/front/story/5810117p-5738569c.html)

Alaska congressional delegation doubts scientists' conclusions
Trio say more proof is needed before casting blame on fossil fuels


By SEAN COCKERHAM
Anchorage Daily News

(Published: November 21, 2004)

WASHINGTON -- All three members of Alaska's congressional delegation dispute the conclusion of leading scientists that human activity is causing the rapid warming of the Arctic that is wrecking villages and melting glaciers.

Alaska's lone congressman, Republican Rep. Don Young, went so far as dismissing the major new report on Arctic climate change. He called it ammunition for fearmongers.

"My biggest concern is that people are going to use this so-called study to try to influence the way and standard of living that occurs within the United States," Young said.

"I don't believe it is our fault. That's an opinion," Young said. "It's as sound as any scientist's."

:rolleyes:

Since when has a politican become greater than science? :mad:

[stubeeef]

Science screws up every week.

What killed the dinos, till a short time ago everyone thought evolution, that they were too stupid to survive. As with global warming, a fact, the mechanism is still at large, don't forget body cooling. See we are finding all the time that the body is not 100f or 99f or even 98.6f but probably less. With more acurate instruments we will finally settle on a number.
As far as the hole size in the southern atmosphere, it has been getting bigger for the most part, but what did it look like 1000 yrs ago? What caused the dark ages (lack of solar activity on the sun surface?)

There are many within NASA that believe increased solar activity is to blame for global warming. Based on sound scientific evidence, but still subject to interpretation.

There are great articles on the subject, maybe you have already read many.

such as this (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html)

In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.

Is pollution a primary or secondary, or not at all contributor, who knows? Like statistics you can find science to support your argument. I take neither side, the jury is out, but the politics of this is a mess. Kyoto is/was as well.

good luck getting the absolute answer, if you have it, please forward it to NASA too.

I know kyoto is not the subject of this thread, probably has been in the past but here is one a ton of links (http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/1102199.html)

The Kyoto protocol is to date the only international agreement that calls for action to reduce emissions of CO2. Yet the Harvard scientists and economists who study climate change express almost universal criticism of the accord, which they fault as economically inefficient, unobjective, inequitable, and—worst of all—ineffective. And they point out that the protocol fails to include the largest future sources of CO2 emissions. China, for example, will pass the U.S. in annual emissions of CO2 by 2013, according to Boas professor of international economics Richard N. Cooper. Another projection suggests that, by 2050, China's cumulative contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere will exceed those of the United States.

[blackfox]

Stu, would it be correct to characterize your position as " not advocating action to combat man-made pollution?"

It seems all well and fine to say you don't know for certain, but do you have a guess? Would you be willing to support action that follows your guess?

Do you favor drilling in Alaska? Because we are not sure that there is much oil there. There might be, then again, maybe not.

Do you favor Tax cuts? The jury is out on it's contribution to the health of a National Economy. Perhaps it is not helpful.

Do you favor Gay-Marriage? There are some who think it will destroy the social fabric, others who say it will strengthen it. No-one really knows for sure.

Did you vote upon any of those issues, which are based on less certain knowledge than the Global Warming phenomenon? If so, why? As they can all be argued both ways, ad infinitum...

Just some friendly (rhetorical) questioning...

[zimv20]

stu -

i often see the global warming debate framed this way: "prove to me it's humans doing it."

i submit that, whatever the causes, global warming will **** us over. so if we're the cause or not, it's difficult for me to imagine we're not at least contributing, so what's wrong w/ making an effort to cut down on our own harmful behaviors?

an analogy: it doesn't matter why my house is burning down. what's more important is that it is, and i need to do something right now.

[stubeeef]

Stu, would it be correct to characterize your position as " not advocating action to combat man-made pollution?"

It seems all well and fine to say you don't know for certain, but do you have a guess? Would you be willing to support action that follows your guess?

Do you favor drilling in Alaska? Because we are not sure that there is much oil there. There might be, then again, maybe not.

Do you favor Tax cuts? The jury is out on it's contribution to the health of a National Economy. Perhaps it is not helpful.

Do you favor Gay-Marriage? There are some who think it will destroy the social fabric, others who say it will strengthen it. No-one really knows for sure.

Did you vote upon any of those issues, which are based on less certain knowledge than the Global Warming phenomenon? If so, why? As they can all be argued both ways, ad infinitum...

Just some friendly (rhetorical) questioning...

I am willing to support equitable action to eliminate the pollution and possibly tame global warming.
I am in favor of responsible drilling in Alaska. After all capitalism is risk and reward. :)
I think Jfk (kennedy) had the tax cut thing right. Still do.
I don't favor Gay-marriage as the majority of US citizens (kerry & edwards to boot) believe.
As far a voting, I guess you mean did my vote for individuals reflect their views on those subjects? Global Warming-no, Alaska-no, Gay marriage (since both prez candidates were against) - No, Tax cuts-yes.
How did you vote mr friendly? :) Was your vote all wrapped neatly in each packet?
What is your opinion on these ever so difficult questions?

[stubeeef]

stu -

i often see the global warming debate framed this way: "prove to me it's humans doing it."

i submit that, whatever the causes, global warming will **** us over. so if we're the cause or not, it's difficult for me to imagine we're not at least contributing, so what's wrong w/ making an effort to cut down on our own harmful behaviors?

an analogy: it doesn't matter why my house is burning down. what's more important is that it is, and i need to do something right now.

I think it should be framed in a more equitable world view, and yes we should change what we can, Global Warming may f us, but maybe we will EVOLVE into the proper animal to survive. I think the issue should be on the front burner (pun intended) and the rain forest should be stopped burning ( i have flown over it many nights-fires everywhere) and the alternate energy sources broken lose, and CO2 limits placed evenly worldwide and abided too.
Maybe we should invade the countries that don't abide? ;)

[IJ Reilly]

Stu, all these things you speak about require an equitable division of sacrifice. The nations where rain-forests are being burned are not going to be willing to curtail that activity if the industrialized nations, and particularly the big fossil-fuel users such as the US, aren't prepared to reduce their hydrocarbon emissions. Hammering out who gives up what and how much is a process of international treaty negotiation. As I am sure you will be quick to point out, this process is "flawed" and based on science that is "uncertain," but these are limitations we just have to accept because the alternative is doing nothing, and the broad scientific consensus is that doing nothing will likely be disastrous. This seems like a sufficient motivator to me to take these issues seriously, but obviously not to those who place parochial interests above all else.

[emw]

While I tend to believe that humans have had, and continue to have more of, an impact on our global environment, in terms of temperature, the Earth has gone through its share of climatological changes long before humans were able to make that sort of impact themselves.

Volcanic activity, or lack thereof; solar activity, or lack thereof, oceanic effects; normal climatic variation. We have such a limited view of the data of world temperature variations, that making decisions based on this data is questionable. Are we causing the Arctic ice to melt? Well, we may be helping to some degree, but we may or may not be able to truly impact the cause, which could be linked to the high degree of solar output.

What I do know is that burning of fossil fuels causes pollution, is relatively inefficient, and eliminates a non-renewable resource. For those reasons alone, we need to find newer, cleaner, renewable fuel sources. If "global warming" (if that's what you call Chicago's coolest, rainiest, crappiest summer in my memory) is a good excuse to hurry the efforts, then fine. But let's look at the data as it is - an incomplete set of numbers from which we are trying to extrapolate information.

As for burning of the Rain Forest - again, these forests are a tremendous resource in terms of their ability to produce oxygen and clean the air. Burning them down not only eliminates that resource, it by default makes the situation much worse through the actual burning process.

So while I am by nature a "scientist," that requires me to question science when it is based on what I believe to be incomplete or faulty data. We have limited data on this subject - it is easy to say we have had an impact, most notably recently, because we don't have any real data before that. In fact, much of the data we do have suggests that fairly wild swings in temperature averages are not uncommon.

[stubeeef]

emw,
Brilliantly stated.

[stubeeef]

Stu, would it be correct to characterize your position as " not advocating action to combat man-made pollution?"

As the article stated there were no recommendations submitted from the study. So there was no action requested or denied.

I personally wish we would get cafe (mpg kind) numbers doubled.

[Xtremehkr]

Bleeding used to be an accepted medical practice.

Smoking used to be considered healthy.

The world was once considered to be flat.

Copernicus was persecuted by the church for stating his belief that the earth rotated around the sun and was not the center of the Universe.

When major climate change comes much too quickly and people cannot evolve and grow fur fast enough, it will of course, be blamed on all of that 'Liberal hot air.'

Please, if you are going to invoke evolution, buy a clue.

[stubeeef]

Sorry about the sarcasm with evolution.

The theory of evolution has adapted.

[Xtremehkr]

Sorry about the sarcasm with evolution.

The theory of evolution has adapted.

Well, my sarcasm detector is notoriously bad :o

[blackfox]

The theory of evolution has adapted.
Or the theory of adaptation has evolved...either way, quite the wit...

Sorry about the sarcasm with evolution
Yes, obviously you are.

As to my voting record in answer to my own question(s), it doesn't matter. They were rhetorical. I meant only to comment that your non-commital position on the subject, probably reflects the fact that it either doesn't impact you enough emotionally or physically, or that you just do not assign it a high priority of consideration. It probably has very little to do with how strong the facts point to a particular conclusion.

You believe what you want to believe.

Am I sarcastic?

[stubeeef]

bfox, no you are not. I find myself :rolleyes: often. It is hard for me to get to wrapped around the axle here much anymore, I often find myself laughing out loud at many of the posts that seem to be very serious, so it is easy for me to get a little punchy.

But I didn't want to avoid your question, I thought you wanted me on record, which is fine.

I am pretty green for a conservative, I buy green power blocks from duke power on my bill. I read homepower (http://homepower.com/) magazine, and feel that we can do better in the energy dept in many ways. Include local codes, for higher insulation, more efficent heatpumps-12 or higher-or geo thermal, tax credits for alternate energy home installation, etc. I do think things need to get done, and soon, on a global plan, that is equitable.

As serious as many are about the subject, do we attack countries that fail to comply with a plan? I think that is a very valid question, and one contrary to many.

The article linking the thread was more of a media attempt to bash some people, the facts behind global warming are fuzzy, this particular study offered no reccomendations, and yet repubs get slammed. There is no cry foul to spending money for studies with no reccomendations though.

[amnesiac1984]

As serious as many are about the subject, do we attack countries that fail to comply with a plan? I think that is a very valid question, and one contrary to many.


This question is irrelevant because the US would have to attack itself first before even talking about combatting other polluters.

[stubeeef]

This question is irrelevant because the US would have to attack itself first before even talking about combatting other polluters.

:confused:
Didn't realize there was a plan in effect and agreed on.
I, maybe wrongly, thought kyoto was dead.

[amnesiac1984]

:confused:
Didn't realize there was a plan in effect and agreed on.
I, maybe wrongly, thought kyoto was dead.

Well I am not sure but I would have thought that kyoto, if indeed it is dead, is only dead because the USA and namely Bush refused to accept it. Perhaps someone else can help, is kyoto still in existence as a possible treaty or agreement?

[zimv20]

the kyoto treaty was signed by many nations and those nations are presumably operating under the treaty today.

[blackfox]

bfox, no you are not. I find myself :rolleyes: often. It is hard for me to get to wrapped around the axle here much anymore, I often find myself laughing out loud at many of the posts that seem to be very serious, so it is easy for me to get a little punchy.

I believe we all laugh out loud at some of the posts here. As informative as this forum can often be, it is also entertaining. I wouldn't duck out of more important work to come here otherwise.

As a relative centrist, I get to laugh a lot here, with an occasional cry and jaw-drop thrown in for good measure.

[skunk]

I think of myself more as a central relativist... :)

[mactastic]

In other news, conservatives also denied the existance of gravity, photosynthesis, and fiscal responsibility; claiming that all are 'theories that can't be proven to exist'.

[zimv20]

In other news, conservatives also denied the existance of gravity, photosynthesis, and fiscal responsibility; claiming that all are 'theories that can't be proven to exist'.
yes, because deficits and the value of the dollar defy gravity.

[blackfox]

In fairness, mac, it is obvious that Fiscal Responsibility no longer exists.

Whether this is an evolutionary development or the will of God, has yet to be determined.

[blackfox]

yes, because deficits and the value of the dollar defy gravity.
So I guess Logic has met the same fate...

[Desertrat]

I think it's hubris for folks to blame global warming on the activities of homo sap. I don't argue that there is strong evidence for climatic change, although many areas seem to be running rather cool these days. But, it's said that the warming comes about from higher nighttime lows rather than higher daytime highs. I dunno.

But I read stuff from the forestry people that there are more trees now than when the Puritans arrived. (Quantity, not quality.) I also read that younger trees consume more CO2 than mature trees. Again, I dunno. But I saw a NASA datum saying that the amount of CO2 in the air entering the US from the Pacific is greater than that in the air leaving the US toward the Atlantic, so the foregoing might indeed be correct.

IF the above is true, then it's hard for me to see why we should be the ones who are somehow morally bound, obligated, to be the most impacted by Kyoto.

So I just do my own small part. $50/month electric bill. Recycled cars and work critters means no energy is used in my behalf by manufacturers of new stuff.

'Rat

[stubeeef]

Wow rat, thanks for that info, it gives me hope, so thankyou!

And for the record, conservatives are not just anti gravitly and such, we are anti everything, so get onboard with the program.

bfox, here are some good laughs (http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archives/category/jokes-and-humor)

[Xtremehkr]

Wow rat, thanks for that info, it gives me hope, so thankyou!

And for the record, conservatives are not just anti gravitly and such, we are anti everything, so get onboard with the program.

bfox, here are some good laughs (http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archives/category/jokes-and-humor)

Do you ever think that maybe you obsess about things?

[stubeeef]

Do you ever think that maybe you obsess about things?

I think about that 24hrs a day!

[Xtremehkr]

If all of the liberals in the world disappeared tomorrow, would it solve everyones problems?

[stubeeef]

Only if they took all the lawyers with'em.

[Xtremehkr]

Only if they took all the lawyers with'em.

do you know what a non sequitor is?

[stubeeef]

follow (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/nonseq.htm) the link.

[Xtremehkr]

follow (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/nonseq.htm) the link.

Safari doesn't like that link. It was a pretty straightforward question.

Communists were the boogeymen of old, the reason for all evil in the world. Now it's liberals, is it a fun game?

[stubeeef]

maybe this will help
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/nonseq.htm

Look, I am the VAST minority on this site, conservatives, according to half the c**p on this forum are responsible for everything evil and bad with the world, are ignorant, and have warts/horns. So don't look for a lot of simpathy from me about Iraq, taxes, afganistan, abortion, etc. Sorry.

[Xtremehkr]

maybe this will help
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/nonseq.htm

Look, I am the VAST minority on this site, conservatives, according to half the c**p on this forum are responsible for everything evil and bad with the world, are ignorant, and have warts/horns. So don't look for a lot of simpathy from me about Iraq, taxes, afganistan, abortion, etc. Sorry.

Depends on what variety on conservatism I guess. I wouldn't call GDub a conservative per se. I like John McCain though, his values are conservative.

Regardless, if there were no liberals to hire them, the lawyers would all be working for you guys wouldn't they? It does not follow.

[stubeeef]

Only if they took all the lawyers with'em.

I was just trying to make a funny. Cause-the flip is -of course it would not
solve everyones problems, but if.....that is the lawyer joke.

Kinda like "what do you call 5 lawyers chained together at the bottom of the ocean, a good start! (2 of my best friends are lawyers and tell these jokes constantly-1 is liberal).

Sorry It was not painfully obvious, but all the liberals could never dissappear, because relative to those that are "left" McCain would then be the liberal.

It is like Einstien said-everything is realitive.

[zimv20]

conservatives, according to half the c**p on this forum are responsible for everything evil and bad with the world, are ignorant, and have warts/horns. So don't look for a lot of simpathy from me about Iraq, taxes, afganistan, abortion, etc. Sorry.
ummmm... do you see the irony of that post?

[stubeeef]

ummmm... do you see the irony of that post?

Ahhh, you prove my point, thankyou zim!

[Xtremehkr]

When considering the reasoning to modern conservatism, there must be something deeper than simply attacking liberals incessantly.

There must be an argument somewhere, a goal; a premise; a vision; an intended result.

Liberals being poo poo heads and offering unreasonable arguments can't be what holds people to the cause.

Maybe some, but not all.

[zimv20]

Ahhh, you prove my point, thankyou zim!
you're welcome?

[stubeeef]

When considering the reasoning to modern conservatism, there must be something deeper than simply attacking liberals incessantly.

There must be an argument somewhere, a goal; a premise; a vision; an intended result.

Liberals being poo poo heads and offering unreasonable arguments can't be what holds people to the cause.

Maybe some, but not all.

I am sorry that it hasn't hit you, it is stated all over the place, or is it millions of people who don't want you to move their cheese?

[Xtremehkr]

I am sorry that it hasn't hit you, it is stated all over the place, or is it millions of people who don't want you to move their cheese?

That's not an answer.

[stubeeef]

Go forth and explore grasshopper, erm..i mean X.

Good luck, and may the force be with you! ;)

[Xtremehkr]

Go forth and explore grasshopper, erm..i mean X.

Good luck, and may the force be with you! ;)

You mean, "have faith," or something. I really hope that there is more to it than that.

I have an inkling, but I can also see why 'political correctness' is seen as a supression of free speech. I guess it will come out eventually.

There really has to be more to it than taunting, name calling and character assasination.

Oh well, night all.

[blackfox]

What is going on here?

I might ask for much of this page to be stricken from the record.

Stu, you are entitled to your opinions and as to whether or not you enjoy posting here. I personally am glad you contribute.

Martyr or Pariah you are not.

Many of the people who contribute to this forum are thoughtful individuals, although you may not agree with their points, they are more than Liberal reactionaries or Democratic talking points and this deserves th proper credit.

The same credit which I, and others, extend to you.

I am sorry if you feel crowded out by opinions you do not agree with, but to dismiss them out-of-hand, does no-one a service.

Like I said, perhaps these posts should be stricken.
I do believe most of us are adults.

[skunk]

When you reach the Pole, you can't go any further South....

[stubeeef]

Hey, I'm not unhappy here bfox!

But after the day I had, I wasn't going to start a piece on neocon dogma.

Goodness, if you want the dogma-look it up.

Everyone here knows where I stand on about everything, but having to spit out the official planks of neocon-ness is a bit much in the wee hours on the east coast. It turned out I only got 4 hrs sleep-I am about start 1 of 2 class at 8:30 am end at 4 pm and drive 9hrs in holiday traffic tonight.

Besides some of the planks I don't always agree with-remember assault wpns!

I imagine X doesn't buy all the dnc ones either, and I don't expect him to outline why the liberals think that "rightwing nutjob, jesusland, neocons" is not name calling, taunting or character assasination.

When considering the reasoning to modern conservatism, there must be something deeper than simply attacking liberals incessantly.

X is not calling me those things-but come on read a couple of posts here.

Certainly the left has some basis in reality? If not in a parrallel dimension.

I have not called for the extermination of liberals, liberal thought, or such, so don't expect me to. I have the same fun as some here with my signature-like my new one from Ronnie, but ones like located in jesusland are no different.

Have a happy Thanksgiving everybody, and don't forget to say the blessing! ;)

[blackfox]

Stu, I guess my point is that is works both ways, an irony often missed.

It is too early to say more, except to wish everyone a happy Thanksgiving (if you are American).

Even if it is a monument to our imperial, genocidal past and the evils of White men and of the patriarchial class structure that emboldened them.

I am so kidding. Oh, coffee's done...

[pseudobrit]

yes, because deficits and the value of the dollar defy gravity.

That's because they follow the laws of God instead of science.

We'll just all have to pray real hard and both of everything'll be just super again.

[Xtremehkr]

What is going on here?

I might ask for much of this page to be stricken from the record.

Stu, you are entitled to your opinions and as to whether or not you enjoy posting here. I personally am glad you contribute.

Martyr or Pariah you are not.

Many of the people who contribute to this forum are thoughtful individuals, although you may not agree with their points, they are more than Liberal reactionaries or Democratic talking points and this deserves th proper credit.

The same credit which I, and others, extend to you.

I am sorry if you feel crowded out by opinions you do not agree with, but to dismiss them out-of-hand, does no-one a service.

Like I said, perhaps these posts should be stricken.
I do believe most of us are adults.

Sorry for offending your delicate sensibilities blackfox, but perhaps you have missed all of the stories outlining how uncomfortable liberals are feeling living in their own country. There is one featured prominently on the discussion page.

I know Stu likes to play the persecuted conservative because (even though he is not) he claims to be the only one on the board.

Holding someone to a point is not exactly beating up on anyone. You may have also noticed that a lot of defenses of Bushs policies are nothing more than attacks on liberals. Which is not a defense at all.

It must be nice to be somewhere where you are untouched by the current partisan ugliness. I am at the point where not only I am I sick of it, I want to get a deeper understanding of what people are buying into, cause it doesn't make sense to me.

Do a lot of the events of the last four years make sense to you?

Having a reasonable conversation with an unreasonable person is not exactly fun, so if a non sequitor is offered as an answer than I will point that out. Why not? I can be a smartass too.

I don't think that it is unreasonable at all to point out that a non-answer is not a defense of something. One reference to "Jesusland" is hardly the same as advocating moving all liberals to badlands and then taking it back when they have made something of it because "we" have all the guns. There are many more, I could collect them if you like.

Appreciate the concern BF, but that was hardly an ugly exchange.

[blackfox]

Yes, I am very sensitive. My heart is bleeding right now.

I understand your point(s) Xtremehkr, both in relation to Stu and in general and in many cases I agree with you.

It was not so much that your exchange was ugly as useless.

Perhaps I am indeed too concillatory. It has just been my opinion that it is not what you say, but how you say it that matters.

This is as true in an internet forum discussion as in Presidential Campaigns.

[pseudobrit]

Yes, I am very sensitive. My heart is bleeding right now.

I hear they make a purple bandaid for that or something.

[stubeeef]

link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=585&e=1&u=/nm/20041215/sc_nm/environment_arctic_dc)

Interesting article on global temps in arctic 20 million years ago.

LONDON (Reuters) - It may be freezing cold and covered in ice now but 70 million years ago the Arctic Ocean was as tepid as the Mediterranean.

Of course they may come out next week and say they had it all wrong, but interesting in this discussion.