Posted on 05/12/2008 1:37:03 PM PDT by shrinkermd
I did not listen to Rush’s entire show. The part I did here, was a “look-down-your-nose-sneer” at Senator McCain’s concern and proposals about climate change. I know this is problematical with those believing we are on the edge of a catastrophe and those who feel this is all hokum.
Seemingly, faith has replaced all reason in assessing the problem.
In actual fact the problem is really quite simple. What the European and other governments want to do is to hold the concentration of carbon dioxide to 450 parts per million. Presently, it is 380 ppm. At the beginning of the industrial age it was 280 ppm. As far as I can tell these are facts. My source is a recent article by Fred Pierce in the New Scientist. That link is: here.
The actual problem is not clearly a scientific problem and there are disputes as to the meaning of the rise of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere. A few excerpts from the above article include the following:
”…European governments are pressing for an agreement that would keep atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide below 450 parts per million. This compares with pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm and current levels of 380 ppm. This, they argue, will prevent warming by more than 2 °C, and so avoid "dangerous" climate change.
”Yet many climate scientists wince at this. First, because the European governments like to claim that the IPCC backs these targets, when in fact the IPCC goes out of its way to say that setting targets is a job for politicians. And second, because nobody knows either whether 450 ppm will hold warming below 2 °C, or whether this amount of warming will turn out to be safe. "It's horrifying when you see things boiled down to simple terms like a 2 °C warming. That will mean hugely different things for different places," Palmer says.
One reason the IPCC's official reports are slow to bridge this gap is the panel's policy of only considering published peer-reviewed research that is available when its review process gets under way. This means the current report, published last year, takes no account of research published after early 2005.
An increasingly scary debate about the state of the Greenland ice sheet is almost entirely absent in the 2007 report, for instance (see "What if the ice goes?"). Other recent research suggests that warming may be accelerating beyond IPCC predictions: first, because higher temperatures are releasing greenhouse gases from forests, soils and permafrost; and second, because the ocean's ability to absorb CO2 seems to have declined in the past decade.
"An increasingly scary debate about the state of the Greenland ice sheet hardly figures in the IPCC's 2007 report"
Equally worrying is the fact that climatologists are losing confidence in the ability of existing models to work out what global warming will do to atmospheric circulation - and hence to local weather patterns like rainfall. The most recent IPCC report made a number of regional predictions. It felt able to do so because it was generally assumed that if most models agreed on future climate in, say, the Amazon rainforest or western Europe, then they were probably right.
From my perspective Rush is more interested in pandering to his base with oversimplifications and relying on ridicule as argumentation.
I frankly, don’t know how serious this problem is, but there is a problem—within the lifetime of many reading this post atmospheric carbon dioxide will double. As cited in this article:
One of these unknowns was highlighted last month in the preprint of a paper James Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies has submitted to the journal Science (www.arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126). Looking back 50 million years, to a time when falling CO2 levels in the atmosphere reached 425 ppm - a level we are likely to reach within two decades - he says that was the moment Antarctica got its ice cap. This suggests that the planet may have a tipping point at around that level, give or take 75 ppm, and that by going above it we could render Antarctica ice-free once again. That would raise sea levels by around 60 metres.
I think Senator McCain’s interest in this subject is based on factual considerations. What we don’t know, we don’t know but now is not the time to close off all reasonable consideration and debate.
Can you explain to me how you calculate a single global temperature?
I'd be very careful about making statements like this and trying to support your argument with the science of James Hanson. I respectfully suggest you do more research on his "math".
>> Rush was suffering from a pilonidal cyst
I see you have time to grapple with the difficult and important issue of Rush and his pilonidal cyst.
Do you have time to answer the question I posed to you about the thread you posted?
What about China?
“McCain said if efforts to negotiate an accord that includes China and India don’t succeed, the U.S. still has ``an obligation to act.’’ “
Is that wise? Is it in the best interest of the US to screw our economy anyhow when the Red Chinese invariably tell the world to stuff it on reducing greenhouse gas emissions?
Is that the sort of leadership you’re looking for?
The Team Juan approach to campaigning, in perfect miniature.
I guess you have the answer. Case closed. Anyone who questions your convictions can always ask Rush. He will tell them the same thing.
It’s worse than that: the changes these greenweenies want would likely throw the whole earth’s self-correction mechanisms into a tizzy, and impose a global ice age. It’s madness to think MAN can tinker with NATURE.
The science is settled, and we have reached a concensus: John McCain is an idiot.
Anyone who disagrees is a denier.
I have no opinion on China. It sounds like they will have to be encouraged or blackmailed if the rest of the world does something about carbon dioxide emissions. The problem of China is self-evident. That does not absolve us of our responsibility.
Therefore, we should label it junk science, castigate McCain and get a “real conservative” to represent us.
While agree with the sentiment, I did not express that in my post to you. You're sticking words in my posts.
ROFLMAO!
Hey you made Rush’s day for him. Nothing like a little intellectual reflection to end the day with.
Hell, we don’t even have accurate temperature records in any part of the US, let alone any other country, for more than several decades at most.
How anyone can state with a straight face that the Earth is warming, cooling or doing anything else catastrophic is an accomplished liar.
>> That does not absolve us of our responsibility.
OK, I see how it is. You really don’t care if John McCain engages in an economic suicide pact — even when it is guaranteed to fail in its goal of reducing greenhouse gases because a significant producer — soon to be the MOST SIGNIFICANT producer — won’t go along. As long as we can “feel good” about it, let’s destroy our own economy — for NOTHING gained.
It’s a free country, but that’s a really weird point of view to adopt. Maybe you can start a new party — National Masochists.
Can't wait until he and his supporters take on our REAL enemies, instead of Rush.......waiting....waiting...waiting...
I’m not trying to make Rush’s day, or to be snappy to you.
I am just tired of politicians making decisions about how to spend our money based on fantasy.
McCain has an opportunity to reach out to conservatives, but he is choosing to stab us in the eye instead. All of us are going to suffer the consequences that are coming.
The result of jumping on the human caused global warming bandwagon can be expressed very simply in terms everyone can understand.
Take your monthly utility bill and add your monthly gas/diesel spending. Now multiply that number by 3.
Factor in the increases for every bit of food you buy.
It's not a matter of convictions. It's a matter of verifiable facts. I cited some for you. The global warming alarmists have inaccurate models that cannot even predict today's climate. Is that what you put your faith in? Or do you not really care and think it's just good for us to "do something" like McCain proposes, no matter what harm it does the economy?
Property values at Hyannis Port would plummet, huh?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.