« The High Priest of Man-Made Global Warming | Main | My Lists »

Comments

Greg

There is a Pentagon report on the potentially imminent and colossal national security posed by climate change. This report wasn't penned by members of the "Chicken Little sky-is-falling crowd" as you and Republican leaders like to call global- warming activists. It was written by Peter Schwartz, former head of planning for Shell Oil and CIA consultant, and Doug Randall of the Global Business Network, a California think tank. The report was commissioned by the Department of Defense and it paints a scenario under which global warming could pose a threat to the world "greater than terrorism". The report can be read here:

http://www.grist.org/pdf/AbruptClimateChange2003.pdf

Now since you seems to value the work of the Washington Post, you can find an interesting story on how our military views the threats of climate change (climate change, a new phrase made by that hack of a word-smith Frank Luntz). According to the article the U.S. Army War College funded a two-day conference at the Triangle Institute for Security Studies titled "The National Security Implications of Global Climate Change." A group of 11 retired senior generals will release a report saying that global warming "presents significant national security challenges to the United States," which it must address or face serious consequences. This article can be read here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/14/AR2007041401209.html

The U.S. Army College report can be viewed here:

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB779.pdf


Now I ask, why is this getting so much negative review from you and Republican's? Could it be that to acknowledge any aspect of global warming or climate change whatever you want to call it, would mean that in some way Al Gore was correct? The hell with it being truthful or not, the implications and possible threats from global warming are pale to the constant and persistent denial of global warming and Al Gore. I believe the large amount of resistance of global warming comes from the fact that many refuse to acknowledge that perhaps Gore is and was somewhat correct. So now there is a consistent effort to refuse to acknowledge anything from Al Gore. Was Al Gore's premonitions and predictions of what the war in Iraq might bring about true? Yes, but like global warming to acknowledge them would mean in some way he was correct, and by all means this cannot be the case. So by all means let's just demonize Al Gore and global warming and pretend it is just a farse. I am sure if Al Gore came up with a cure for cancer, there would be some Republican's call to find fault with that too. In the end I do not find it is the cause of global warming that you and Republican's are so against, it is the one who has become a huge figure in the discussion that you so oppose.

Me thinks if this was an issue that George Bush was triumphing, the reaction to this would be far different from you and Republican's. You bought the Kool-Aid when it came to his trumped up, false reasons to go into Iraq, and there is more data supporting global warming than there was than Bush's contention for going to war.

Peg

Greg, from what I see, there is good evidence of global warming.

So what? Long before man was ever on the scene, nor man's SUV's, private jets and golf courses in Arizona, the planet heated and cooled on its own quite nicely, thank you.

The fundamental questions and issues are not so much "Is the Earth warming?" They are: "How much (if anything) can man do to impact this effect?" and "IF we can do something, is the gain worth the pain?"

I have not been convinced yet that man can have a significant impact on the warming, no matter what - nor have I been convinced that, even if we can have some effect, that it's worth the enormous burden it will impose.

That being said - I've always been one in favor of conservation, in virtually all aspects of my life. Don't waste. Don't over use that which you don't need. Good advise irrespective of MM global warming - IMHO.

Peg

Make that "advice" in my last sentence! :)

Greg

You say

"I have not been convinced yet that man can have a significant impact on the warming no matter what - nor have I been convinced that, even if we can have some effect, that it's worth the enormous burden it will impose.".

So I ask how much time or effort have you done to read or learn anything about the issue? To say that you have not been convinced indicates you have done some sort of research into the issue. So this is where the fundamental question must be asked. Have you looked into the issue or read anything on this issue, and if so to whom have you gotten your information from? Or perhaps as I suspect, your doubt on this issue comes because Al Gore is tied to the issue?

Now the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released the third part of its Assessment Report recently. The first part of the report released earlier this year dealt with the science behind climate change. The second part dealt with the impacts of climate change. The third portion of the report dealt with what you entitled "the burden it will impose" . All three parts can be read here http://www.ipcc.ch.

To make a summary of the third part, it suggest that mitigating global warming effects can be done at a “modest cost.” The report sets a target of reducing global warming gas emissions by at least 50 percent by 2050. It goes into employing the use of energy efficient methods and by increasing use in the renewable energy area (such as Green Power Switch in which Gore uses). This report goes on to state that there is enormous potential for the cost-effective deployment of energy systems that would help reduce pollution while producing employment gains. According to Bill Hare, one of the lead authors of the report, the cost is manageable:

"Well, over the period to 2030 it’s going to cost about, maximum, I would say about 0.1 percent loss of annual GDP growth globally. I’m not sure that would really be detected in terms of the year-to-year variations in global growth."

Stephan Singer of the World Wildlife Fund states

“It has been shown for the first time that stopping climate pollution in a very ambitious way does not cost a fortune. There is no excuse for any government to argue that it is going to cause their economy to collapse.”

Now the biggest question that should be looked at, and no one has yet to answer is, if the case for climate change is so weak, as those who seem to dismiss it say it is. Why has the Bush Administration done everything it can to squash and alter many of the findings it's top researchers have come up with? They are trying to get the G8 to change it's statement on climate change, and have done just about anything to deny the true effects of global warming. If thier case is so strong, why go to such efforts to deny it's existence?


The comments to this entry are closed.