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.
Man caused “Global Warming” is a hoax. End of story.
McCain never reaches out to conservatives. His nose is firmly planted up the butts of the liberals. His name is always partnered with leftists. McCain-Feingold. McCain-Kennedy. McCain-Lieberman.
I don’t believe the crap. A good volcano will put up more crap in a day than cars in the US in a year. Are we to try to control volcanos? And how many hundreds of millions have they wasted to stop cow farts?
I am with Rush. Not to say we should back track but there is no point in driving us all to the poor house with government subsidies.
Do you believe polar bears are going instinct because global warming is starving them to death to?????????????
So thoughtful, charming and persuasive. Why don't you run for office?
Exactly what does a medical condition have to do with this argument? Debate is a science and I see you are good at couching an ‘unbiased’ stance with cleverly phrased comments “pandering” “...how big the problem is, but I know there is a problem....” — answering a logical reply with an another inane association, etc. Just typical academic contrarianism.
It would be a pay cut. There's no compelling reason to be charming when shining light on cockroaches bent on destroying the United States.
I was just looking at a graph that demonstrates that although in CO2 has been steadily climbing, the temperatures have both risen and fallen without any correlation to the CO2. So, how does anyone know that higher CO2 has anything to do with temperature rise?
Your right. I am sorry. I should have stuck to the Rush’s politics. Like, he is the chosen conservative pundit who bashes McCain for not being a conservative, yet Rush has had three marriages, no children and has one drug conviction. He may sound like a conservative. He may be a conservative. But he does not live like a conservative.
In any case, his judgment of McCain seems based on an intrinsic dislike more than anything else.
When the enviro-quacks start mentioning the warming “impacts” of (A) volcanic gases and, more importantly (B) WATER VAPOR, then maybe I’ll listen to what they have to say. Not before.
You conveniently forgot to mention that ‘convervative’ McCain is on his second marriage (to a rich lady ala John Kerry). I guess nowadays multiple marriages are the ‘accouterments’ of a conservative lifestyle. (your spelling - not mine). Sounds like something ‘Cooter’ of ‘Dukes of Hazard’ would say, huh?
Actually Man made global warming to the extent it exists is caused by Concrete not CO2. The extent of the warming caused by Concrete is vastly overstated by poorly placed temperature sensors.
I suggest decaf. Everything you say comes out “Unfair to McCain!”
An accessory item of equipment or dress. Often used in the plural.
Military equipment other than uniforms and weapons. Often used in the plural.
accouterments or accoutrements Outward forms of recognition; trappings: cathedral ceilings, heated swimming pools, and other accoutrements signaling great wealth. Archaic The act of accoutering.
Dictionary source: Dictionary.com
McCain underwent treatment for his injuries, including months of grueling physical therapy,[56] and attended the National War College in Fort McNair in Washington, D.C. during 1973–1974.[54][18] By late 1974 McCain had his flight status reinstated,[54] and in 1976 he became commanding officer of a training squadron stationed in Florida.[54][18][57] He turned around a mediocre unit and won the squadron its first Meritorious Unit Commendation.[56] During this period, the McCains' marriage began to falter;[58] he would later accept blame.[58]
McCain served as the Navy's liaison to the U.S. Senate, beginning in 1977.[59] He would later say it represented "[my] real entry into the world of politics and the beginning of my second career as a public servant".[54] McCain played a key behind-the-scenes role in gaining congressional financing for a new supercarrier against the wishes of the Carter administration.[60][56]
In 1979,[56] McCain met and began a relationship with Cindy Lou Hensley, a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona, the only child of the founder of Hensley & Co.[58] By then McCain's naval career had stalled;[61] it was unlikely he would be promoted further,[56] because he had poor annual physicals and had been given no major sea command.[61]
His wife Carol accepted a divorce in February of 1980,[56] effective in April of 1980.[22] The settlement included two houses, and financial support for her ongoing medical treatments resulting from the 1969 automobile accident; they would remain on good terms.[58] McCain and Hensley were married on May 17, 1980.[13] McCain retired from the Navy on April 1, 1981,[62] as a captain,[63] and headed west to Arizona
From Hot Air Blog:
Mr. McCain has largely maintained a code of silence about his son, now a lance corporal, making only fleeting references to him in public both to protect him from becoming a prize target and avoid exploiting his service for political gain, according to friends. At the few campaign events where Lance Corporal McCain appeared last year, he was not introduced.
The McCains declined to be interviewed for this article, which the campaign requested not be published. “The McCain campaign objects strongly to this intrusion into the privacy of Senator McCain’s son,” Steve Schmidt, a campaign spokesman, said in a statement. “The children of presidential candidates in this election cycle should be afforded the same respect for their privacy that the children of President Bush and President and Senator Clinton have been afforded.” (To protect Lance Corporal McCain in case he is again deployed to a war zone, The New York Times is not publishing recent photographs of him and has withheld some details of his service). …
Two of Jimmy’s three older brothers went into the military. Doug McCain, 48, was a Navy pilot. Jack McCain, 21, is to graduate from the Naval Academy next year, raising the chances that his father, if elected, could become the first president since Dwight D. Eisenhower with a son at war.
The fruit does not fall very far from the tree.
Here is a list of all his children. Note that Senator McCain’s mother, still alive at 96, was an oil heiress.
Father: John Sidney McCain, Jr. (Admiral in US Navy, b. 17-Jan-1911, d. 24-Mar-1981)
Mother: Roberta Wright McCain (oil heiress)
Sister: Sandy McCain Morgan
Brother: Joe McCain (stage actor, b. circa 1942)
Wife: Carol Shepp (model, dated 1963-65, m. Jul-1965, div. 2-Apr-1980)
Son: Doug McCain (stepson, commercial airline pilot, b. 4-Oct-1959)
Son: Andy McCain (stepson, vice president at Hensley & Co., b. 12-May-1962)
Daughter: Sidney McCain (works in music industry, b. 2-Sep-1966)
Wife: Cindy Hensley McCain (liquor heiress, m. May-1980, two daughters, two sons)
Daughter: Meghan McCain (journalist, b. 23-Oct-1984)
Son: John Sidney McCain IV (”Jack”, serving in US Navy, b. 2-May-1986)
Son: James McCain (”Jimmy”, serving in USMC, b. 21-May-1988)
Daughter: Bridget McCain (adopted in Bangladesh from Mother Teresa’s orphanage, b. 21-Jul-1991
John McCain is the presumptive Republican nominee for President. Everything he says is calculated. He said what he said about AGW because his handlers decided the time had come for him to say it. It’s about votes. What he actually believes or will do as President is irrelevant at this point.
If Clinton were to be the Democrat nominee, he is not likely to win over many Obama fans. He has a much better chance with Clinton Democrats. His recent statements concerning ANWAR and AWG give a handful of centrist Democrats that have doubts about Obama the ability to rationalize: “He may be a Republican, but he GETS it man, he really GETS it.” Evidently, the number of “conservative” votes he stands to lose has been calculated to be expendable.
Lawrence Solomon's "The Deniers" (a series of articles on the view of scientists who have been labelled "Global Warming Deniers"):
Other References:
Yes, there is a controversy. What is not controversial is the gradual increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. So far the arguments, of either side, leave me cold and convinced much of the arguments are based on political faith.
If you are convinced that this increase in carbon dioxide will have little or no effect, so be it. For me, I remain open and cautious in my assessments.
-All Presidential candidates and George Soros are members at the Council on Foreign Relations.
There are people here and elsewhere who refuse to believe there is a shadow globally motivated government, operating beyond the visibility of the taxpaying citizen.
One would think the subversive Mexican invasion would be evidence enough.
In light of the questionable science, presented predominantly by POLITICIANS, AGW should also be obvious.
We were given John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Obama, US Senators all, in deference to the clearly brighter lights of Thompson, Romney, Rudy, et al. And it still is not obvious?
Uninformed. misinformed, selfish, egomanaical, lazy, fearful people can be manipulated - ala the US electorate.
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.
