Another group of tree-hugging environmental wackos has emerged, huffing and puffing about the dangers of global warming.
Styling themselves the "Global Roundtable on Climate Change," this band of Chicken Littles has called for "prompt, decisive action on climate change created by the emission of greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide," according to a story in Newsday.
And the group "calls on governments to set scientifically informed targets for reduced global emissions and concentrations of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases and to take immediate action in pursuit of those targets."
Just who are these doomsayers? Well, the list includes Dupont, Alcoa, BASF, Citigroup, Rolls Royce and General Electric. Other enviro-radicals signing on include the National Council of Churches USA and the World Council of Churches. Sheesh. What a bunch of wierdos.
johnny come latelys!
Yes, they are wackos says the current administration. The situation is so critical. And we have wasted many precious years. One is tempted to say six, but then Clinton didn't present Kyoto to Congress, so it could indeed be a lot more. Anyway, time to get moving on this: desperately.
We refer to these corporations as "useful idiots".
Suggest reading the recent Wall Street Journal editorial on climate change, authored by Pete Du Pont.
A couple of useful quotes:
"Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a world-view has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either." Czech president Vaclav Klaus 2/07
"There is also no question that the earth can warm or cool. It has done both at one time or another for thousands of years, even before there were SUVs. If there had never been any global warming before, we wouldn't be able to enjoy Yosemite Valley today for it was once buried under thousands of feet of ice. Back in the 1970s, the environmental hysteria was about the dangers of a new ice age. This hysteria was spread by many of the same individuals and groups who are promoting today's hysteria about global warming. It is not just the sky that is falling. Government money is falling on those who seek grants to study global warming and produce 'solutions' for it. But that money is not as likely to fall on those skeptics in the scientific community who refuse to join the stampede." Thomas Sowell 2/13/07
I'm not sure what you find "useful" about either of those quotes. The one from the Czech politician seems to be just a general gripe, while Sowell (whose speciality is economics) falls into the trap of "if you can't dispute the science, question the motives of the scientists."
Do you find some comfort in their non-scientific approaches?
Global Warming (Globaloney) is more a political issue than it is a science issue. (The crisis must be sustained - gotta keep that government grant money rolling in!). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that "the flow of money is dependent on the perceived problem getting worse.... Jesse Jackson figured that out years ago." Grants flow to those that conform.
Remember, in the 70s, the crisis du jour was Global Cooling. It always seemed strange to me that the proposed solutions for both cooling and warming was the same.
When you consider that the global warming crowd approaches their causes with a religious fervor, I surmise, that there might be yet a further agenda that the eco-wackos haven't publicized. A belief in the "Gaia - Mother Earth" concept may be a subversive attempt at replacing a belief in God.
At any rate, with media complicity, many have joined this fraudulent environmental jihad. Ted Kaczynski would have loved it! Stalin's term, "useful idiots," comes to mind.
Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. But I'd still rather go with those who base their assertions on actual data, rather than assumed motives.
all i know is what i read in the nat'l geographic,i've been a member of this venerable society for nearly 3o years. i cant imagine what kind of sinister motives they might have. is this an art bell thing?
I never use terms "Globaloney" (Global Warming) or "eco-wackos" without a reason. Check out this morning's Drudge Report: An Aussie company offers to offset your cat's flatulent contribution to global warming for a few dollars. Science? I think not!
And there are skeptics of science who still believe the earth is flat. What does either extreme example prove? Nothing. That's why I prefer to look at the data. The closest you have come to making an argument from fact is your claim that scientists were worried about an ice age in the 70's.
It's probably the case that the earth was naturally, gradually cycling towards an ice age until we started dumping so much carbon into the air. (That would explain why they could raise crops in Greenland 1,000 years ago that they can't grow now, for example.) But now evidence of rapid warming is apparent to anyone except those who choose not to see it.
It's not just the fact of global climate change, but the speed with which it is occuring that is unprecedented. That give us very little time to adjust for the changes that are now already occuring. That's something that climate-change deniers don't seem to comprehend.
Actually the denial of global warming stems mostly from the lack of verifiable scientific studies.
Any other field of study is put through scrutiny and rigorous testing and retesting. Global warming theorists have never been held to the same standard.
I am just parroting a favorite author of mine Michael Crichton. He makes many valid points.
Oddly enough, the vast majority of climate scientists worldwide appear to disagree with Mr. Crichton on that. I really don't see how anyone can continue to deny the fact that the earth is warming, when there is plenty of evidence that even laypersons can comprehend. How do you explain the disappearance of glaciers that had been around for thousands of years (for just one example)?
As I said the thrust of the argument is simply that the science is not held to the same scrutiny other fields of study are.
As far as "why are the glaciers melting?" I have no clue. I am not a scientist. Simply a person that likes to read all sides of a situation and see how many perspectives there are.
As an example I was talking to a person about President Putin. Giving him the media spin we get on this side of the globe. He was there while the U.S.S.R. become Russia. He offered a unique perspective that had me thinking. Nothing is black and white life is shades of grey. There is a lot of fun to had finding each shade.
"As I said the thrust of the argument is simply that the science is not held to the same scrutiny other fields of study are."
Yes, Crichton has made that assertion in one of his novels, apparently. I don't think you've supported that claim, though. For one thing, it is not clear whether you are talking about the observations or the explanations as to why it is happening. That the earth is warming is a matter of observation. The reasons why may still be subject to further revision, but most of the scientists in the field are convinced human activity plays a role.
It is good to get different perspectives, but at some point you have to go with the best evidence and the soundest conclusions. Crichton is a smart guy, no doubt, but he's not a climate scientist, and it seems unreasonable to me to give his opinion equal or more weight than the preponderance of scientific opinion in the relevant field.