Alaska congressional delegation doubts scientists' conclusions

chanoc

macrumors 6502
Original poster
May 20, 2003
339
0
Anchorage, Alaska USA
Ignorant Repubilcans at it again, denial, denial, denial. :rolleyes:

link

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

macrumors 68030
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
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

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

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

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2003
1,208
4,026
PDX
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

macrumors 601
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
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

macrumors 68030
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
blackfox said:
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

macrumors 68030
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
zimv20 said:
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

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,915
1,466
Palookaville
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

macrumors G4
Aug 2, 2004
11,177
0
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

macrumors 68030
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
blackfox said:
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

macrumors 68000
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
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.
 

blackfox

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2003
1,208
4,026
PDX
stubeeef said:
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

macrumors 68030
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
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 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

macrumors 6502a
Jun 9, 2002
760
0
Europe
stubeeef said:
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

macrumors 68030
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
amnesiac1984 said:
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

macrumors 6502a
Jun 9, 2002
760
0
Europe
stubeeef said:
: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

macrumors 601
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
the kyoto treaty was signed by many nations and those nations are presumably operating under the treaty today.
 

blackfox

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2003
1,208
4,026
PDX
stubeeef said:
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.
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
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

macrumors 601
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
mactastic said:
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

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2003
1,208
4,026
PDX
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.