Makes sense. I disagree with many of Carter’s conclusions, but I believe he is knowledgible, articulate, and a good counterbalance to some of those that ignorantly say “the debate is over.” I have only one real issue with him. Like his countryman Tim Flannery he seems to have “taken a side” and assumed the role of an advocate. It’s not what he says (which is often compelling) it’s what he doesn’t say. He calls himself a climate agnostic, and then talks about all the reasons that anthropogenic climate change may not be occurring, but simply dismisses the evidence that it could be occurring as theory rather than science. The problem with that approach is that, sometimes in life you need to act on theory, because if you wait for proof it is too late. If you accept that there is a GHG effect (which he does), and you accept we are increasing GHGs to a substantial degree (which he does), and you accept that temperatures have risen since 1850 (which he does)—is it enough to credibly demonstrate (as he does) that there could be nonanthropogenic causes? I mean if a man’s family was getting sick, and he thought there was a 40% chance that air quality in the home was the issue—would it make sense to wait until he could definitely show by scientific method that air quality was the issue before taking action?
Maybe I need to watch this again. My impression is that he said any "greenhouse effect" was caused by the presence of clouds that trapped heat in the lower atmosphere -- not the presence of carbon dioxide. The CO2/warming nexus is at the very heart of the GORE/UN global warming position. If it is tenuous or demonstrably false, then we should view any pronouncements coming from the same source to be suspect.
Yes, the hypothesis, while not based on any sound science that has yet been explicated, may yet be true. It also may be true that Bush and Cheney have a hurricane guiding machine which they used to steer Katrina into New Orleans. Silly? Of course. But how would you scientifically disprove such a proposition? We cannot base our economic future upon flimsy suppositions, especially ones which seem to have such a self-serving motivation to their proponents.
And let's suppose the family is getting sick and the father assumes a 40% chance that air quality may be a factor. He is not then going to burn down his house to get rid of the foul air. The proposed "cures" for the imagined global warming scenarios have just such a destructive effect upon our prosperity and our freedoms.
Problem is, there is NO change in GHG’s by “implementing Kyoto” protocols. And there is NO evidence of ANY kind that shows that temps are actually still increasing, nor that the rise from 1972-1998 was caused by man-released GHG's. Only a simplemindedly theory that STILL don't match recorded temps at any time in history. The climate models don't work when compared to real-world data. Now, nor in the past. But you believe them for the future?
Zero change in temps are expected from that treaty, as the IPCC/UN admits.
Billions of dollars in taxes to the UN, billions in extra research, and more billions in transfers of carbon sales to Russia (who signed the treaty to get money), African and SE Asian dictators, and European bureaucracies, and millions of lives destroyed by the energy restrictions IMPOSED by the Kyoto Treaty (lost fertilizer, hunger, no fuels in developing and impoverished areas, no electricity, no health care, no transportation, no cooking fuel, no pure water - just carbon sales and more expensive fuels!)
For the Bali Treaty, the cost rises to trillions.
FOR NO CHANGE IN TEMPS.
Your hypothetical homeowner is burning his house, his job, and his barn to try to get rid of a fly he THINKS might be in the attic of his neighbor’s house.
“I mean if a man’s family was getting sick, and he thought there was a 40% chance that air quality in the home was the issue—would it make sense to wait until he could definitely show by scientific method that air quality was the issue before taking action?”
Melstew,
What you say makes perfect sense IF the action that you propose undertaking has little adverse consequences itself and has some reasonably sound method for determing whether it is successfull or not. Unfortunately in this case:
1) We don’t know whether the phenominom being described (human cause global warming) is actualy occuring or not.
2) If it is occuring, we don’t know whether the proposed solution (reducing human production of GHG) will be effective in addressing it.
3) The proposed solution has a MASSIVE cost associated with it, both in terms of dollars and human lives.
4) We don’t know whether the proposed solution will actualy EXACERBATE the problem rather then address it (i.e. The same GHG’s that trap some of Earth’s energy from being reflected out into space ALSO function to insulate the Earth from recieving some of that Solar Energy in the first place)
5) The frevor with which the proposed solution is being pushed generaly elimates discussion of other potential solutions which may be more effective at addressing the problem but will never get considered.... nor even postulated because they do not agree with the accepted dogma (i.e. Are we better off concentrating on building carbon sinks rather then trying to reduce emmisions?)
6) There is no effective way, in the short term, to measure whether the proposed solution is actualy working.... and there will be a built in beaurocracy fighting to elimate any evidence that shows it is not.... since such evidence will harm thier narrow self-interests.
7) Even if the problem does exist and the proposed solution is actualy the most effective means of addressing it. We have not even seriously examined whether the negative consequences caused by the proposed solution will actualy be less then the negative consequences caused by the problem in the first place.
Lets use the analogy of Global Warming as a suspect sore on some-ones foot.
- If the sore is gangrene then amputation may indeed be neccesary.
- If the sore is poison ivy then cutting off the foot is obviously worse then ignoring the problem.
- If the sore is a mild infection then it needs to be treated, but anti-biotics will be effective and far less costly then amputation.
- If the sore is a symptom of AIDS then not only will amputation not cure the problem but it may actualy endanger the patients life due to the stress on thier system from the procedure.