Thursday, June 22, 2006

Will the Naysaying End Now? Probably Not, But Here's Still More Evidence That It's Not Your Imagination: It IS Hotter Than It Used To Be

A report came out today from the National Academy of Sciences that says that the planet hasn't been as hot as it is right now for at least 400 years definitely, and for thousands of years probably. It says the recent spikes in global temps over the past few decades have been a result of manmade carbon emissions -- in essence, global warming is very real, and we're causing it. And this report was commissioned by the Republican Congress. This from the CNN article:

"The report was requested in November by the chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-New York, to address naysayers who question whether global warming is a major threat.

Last year, when the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, launched an investigation of three climate scientists, Boehlert said Barton should try to learn from scientists, not intimidate them.

Boehlert said Thursday the report shows the value of having scientists advise Congress."

I'm very interested to hear how the diehard "Pollution Keeps Our Economy Strong" Republicans are going to refute this new study. They'll probably find their way to Junkscience.com and repeat the same suspect claims from the same peculiar "climatologists", (one from Finland, one from Australia, and one from Alabama), who think global warming is crap and Gore is a phony. The Republicans will say, "No, forget An Inconvenient Truth and all of those thousand climatologists, some of whom have Nobel prizes. These guys from Finland, Australia and Alabama have the right idea! Global warming's all hooey, I say!" And yes, they will sound like Foghorn Leghorn. All the while heat records keep getting smashed.

Also, my man Gore is in England right now, talking about global warming with the man widely presumed to succeed Tony Blair in coming months, Gordon Brown. You can read the brief article here. I'll recommend again that people go see An Inconvenient Truth. There's a great moment in the movie when Gore is talking about the climatologists who take the big ice core samples down in Antarctica. When you pull them out of the ice sheet, you have this long cylinder of ice and you can tell things about the earth's climate at any given time by looking at different sections of the core sample. Gore said that one of the guys was doing this and pointed to a very clear line on the core -- on one side was gray and shaded, the other side was much whiter. Clean. "That's the Clean Air Act," the climatologist said. This antecdote bolsters Gore's claim that governmental action can make some difference on global warming. Like, for instance, American ratification of the Kyoto treaty. When asked about global warming, all George "I Agree with Michael Crichton" Bush talks about are job losses if regulations are enacted. I think it's less likely that anything positive is going to happen on this issue until after these Neanderthals are out of office and someone less beholden to business's short-sighted interests goes into the White House.

6 comments:

blankfist said...

I'm very interested to hear how the diehard "Pollution Keeps Our Economy Strong" Republicans are going to refute this new study. They'll probably find their way to Junkscience.com and repeat the same suspect claims from the same peculiar "climatologists"... who think global warming is crap and Gore is a phony.

Hmmm... sounds like you're drumming the ground around the hornets nest, if you ask me. You trying to say something, Crane? Trying to say I'm a Republican? Again? Dude, I've said it a million times if I've said it once, I want to believe global warming is real. And all the new science is really helping to persuade me. All I ask for is science - real science.

But, I'll never like Gore. Never will.

harwell said...

You know what I love? People who aren't scientists requesting real science...

Unless you know the chemical processes and understand all the jargon, how the hell are you ever going to determine what's real science and what's bogus science dude? Really, the last science class most of us reading this had was probably earthquakes and volcanoes with Jeremy Riskind (notice I didn't make fun of his lisp - too easy). Stop pretending like you can tell what's real and what isn't! The only way you can tell is if one sceintist debunks another. And then you've got to pick and choose who to believe. And boy is that productive.

I say screw science. Any more, if you look hard enough you can find a study that supports any belief you have. Did you know that John Hopkins University recently published a report of research done at NC State that showed a correlation between women who perform fellatio 1-2 times a week and swallow the ejaculate, with decreased odds of getting breast cancer??? Dead serious. I heard it on Love Line and when Dr. Drew thought it was horse crap he then went looking and found the link on cnn.com. And once he read it he still thought it was horse crap. Scientists don't believe science either! (And for the record, I have serious, serious doubts about this study)

The distance between science and religion (as taught to us by CONTACT) isn't that great. Both require faith. If you want to believe global warming is real, you should and just get on with it. Go with your instincts and the science will be there to support it, I assure you. We'd be much better off having a debate about how best to reverse or slow global warming than debating its existence. It's like getting into a fight over whether or not Jesus was actually married and had kids. WWJD? He wouldn't get into a fight over whether he was married and had kids, that's what. It's silly.

Eventually and with or without convincing everyone, our nation will take a much larger stand on reversing global warming. I think it's inevitable and the pressure from the rest of the world (minus Australia maybe) will demand it. The pieces are already in place.

Remember when our country used to lead? And in a good way?

JudgeHolden said...

I actually wasn't trying to single you out on this one Heath. I thought you said you were kidding with the junkscience thing -- didn't you also post up the Wikipedia entry about the guy who ran the thing being a shill for Big Oil? I'm just saying that the junkscience website is a great example of the nonsense that's coming from the right-wingers on this issue.

And as for the science of global warming, I'm with Shawn. The science has been done. The verdict is in. About 900 peer-reviewed scientific articles have been published saying global warming is the real deal, and exactly 0 peer-reviewed scientific articles have been published saying it isn't. As I am not a scientist, I'm going to go ahead and take that as a dose of scientific truth.

The thing I still fail to see is what exactly is to be gained by being a skeptic on this issue. If we band together and clean up our industry to stave off global warming, and it turns out not to be global warming but rather just a natural warming trend (which it won't), then what have you got to show for it? A cleaner environment. Win win, dudes. Win win.

blankfist said...

Not sure what to believe. And, to be honest, I don't know if I ever will. As dire as that sounds, now so more than ever I can see the agenda in everyone's message. I really started seeing it when I was debating something or another with somebody and when I said, "but what if [the group(s) he was defending) had an agenda behind doing that?" And his response was, "What agenda could anyone have behind [doing whatever it was that group or groups was doing]?"

That's when I stopped thinking individually about Dem and Repub agendas and started seeing just about everything anyone says with having a strong agenda behind it. Even junkscience.com. What a let down. My dream would be to have Gore and Bush wrapped together inside a wad of dough much like a pig-n-the-blanket, and then have everyone else in the world that clings to the bi-partisan belief thrust into the crusty, flaky goodness that surrounds them, until they each vomit. Then, and only then, they can be allowed back to the Earth - at which time, I will be there to greet each and everyone with Lewis Black and Penn Romeo (yeah, that's right, I've changed his name from Jillette to Romeo, so what? I was about to change it to Killette) at my side, and we'll take turns rubbing delicous McDonald Hamburgers and Gay Rainbows laced in AIDS on everyone's lips, telling them to "EAT IT!" the entire time.

What would that accomplish? who cares, really? I just want to see Penn Jillette smearing AIDS and hamburgers on Shawn's lips - you kidding me?! How awesome would that be?! Anyhow, back to reality...

"Go with your instincts and the science will be there to support it, I assure you."

That's awesome. I think you used to be able to hear that same logic in church, Shawn. Way to knock it out of the park, dude. Awesome. Just go with your "instinct" or "faith" or something like that. Because, to be quite honest, I don't think when you say "instinct" you really mean "instinct". Because if you did, well, I can assure you (even though I haven't had a science class since Mr. Riskind although I'm not sure THAT should disqualify anyone, to be honest, especially because school isn't the only place we should be learning, but I digress... ) your or my or anyone else's instincts have anyting to do with alerting them to global warming. In fact, that entire statement is ill-informed and baseless. Our instincts have very, very little to do with our ability to interpret the world around us, Shawn. In fact, they guide us in making very base and illogical decisions based on procreation and survival.

And if you say "but doesn't global warming have something to do with survival" I will punch you in the nuts, because our biology cannot intrepret "global warming", you group-think cow. Yeah, that's right, group-think cow. You and Crane. What of it.

blankfist said...

"The thing I still fail to see is what exactly is to be gained by being a skeptic on this issue. If we band together and clean up our industry to stave off global warming, and it turns out not to be global warming but rather just a natural warming trend (which it won't), then what have you got to show for it? A cleaner environment. Win win, dudes. Win win."

Also, about that... Awesome. All for it. Let's do it. Sure. Remember "Hootsie the Owl"? Yeah, he was the one that said, "give a hoot, don't pollute", well, he's all about cleaning up the litter in places people have already littered. How amazing is that?! And he's actually teaching kids (including my generation) to give a hoot (aka give a damn) and go out there and clean up the litter. There's nothing wrong with that - at all. Who wants to live in a filthy place? Not me. But, what "Hootsie" is not telling me is to possibly sacrifice very important liberties in the name of something that may or may not be capable of proving. No. Hootsie is telling me, "Look in the park, idiot, see those bottles? Well, wouldn't you rather not have them there? Yeah? Well, then pick them up, dumb-dumb."

I like that. It's something I can see. As for global warming, well, it could be a natural warming trend - and what's up with the bold parenthetical, dude? Are you so sure "it won't" be? Come on! You know as well as I do, you and Harwell are two of the least likely to be educated in science. Period. Sure, two of the brightest guys I know, especially when it comes to... FICTION! Stop pretending with the whole science thing, please. Leave that for those who can actually understand it. Including those of us who have NOT taken a science class since Riskind - which by the way shouldn't even count as science. Hey, I'm a very profitable and adept object oriented programmer, but I never studied it in school... What do you have to say about them delicious Granny Smiths, bitch!

Brian O'Malley said...

What do you think AC/DC meant with this line?

Cos if good's on the left then I'm sticking to the right