Well, with the need to re-industrialize the United States and the potential and current dangers of both pollution and global warming, what is the best way to go about this? Obviously the proposed carbon tax is a hand out to current industrial entities and will do little to address the problems with pollution. This idea is doomed for failure. The continuation of bleeding tax dollars for highway projects for congested inner city traffic and air travel continues to display a failure to plan for the future. The American transportation system is not sustainable and funds must be shifted to revolutionary transportation systems. These are just a couple of examples of poor planning and the domination of corporate interests in the political realms.
So I ask, how should the country proceed in both industrial development and transportation that addresses both the pollution problem and global warming. Obviously, the subject is of importance to the entire world as different countries share the same water and atmosphere. Should there be a global emphasis on coming to a consensus for the direction of world development? Or should this problem be address on more local basis? What form of government would best be suited to protecting the environment (e.g. libertarian, communist, democratic, republic)?
Anyway, that should be a good place to begin for a very broad topic. If it becomes too broad I will break it up into more focused threads.
And Thatcher herself held a post-graduate science degree from Oxford.
What's curious Khethil is the uniquely American-aspect of this. American conservatives dispute global warming science as a hoax and yet it was Britain's Conservative "Iron Lady" Margaret Thatcher who first raised the call to tackle the problem. One of the strongest advocates in Europe today is Germany's conservative (Christian Democrat) Chancellor, Angela Merkel. She also happens to hold a PhD in physics. The Right does get it, just not in America. What's happened is that the climate change issue has been transformed into the latest front of America's "culture wars." It's a political football, more than anything else, in the United States.
But thanks anyway for trying to derail a thread by changing the subject of what was originally intended to be discussed. This thread was not about reducing our living standard (are you blind and not able to see that the powers that be are doing that anyway with society at the moment as it stands). This thread is about doing what is fair, and making sure that no one has to share more than their fair share of the burden so others can live more comfortably at their expense. That is what we have in the world today, because developed countries continue to sour the environment by using more than their fair share of resources, and forcing lesser countries and people to take on more of the burden of pollution than they deserve.
But besides that, I love how a conversation about global warming is quickly shifted to Al Gore by a libertarian or conservative that has not looked into the vast literature on global warming other than an Al Gore propaganda piece put together by Hollywood. Is it sensationalized, of course that is Hollywood for you. But sometimes in order to reach everyday common people, you need to scare the sh!t out of them a little.
Most politicians who have a problem with global warming are ones who have a financial stake in companies that produce greenhouse gases.
Well, as much as we hate the government, they're the ones with money and who can create policy. One can only hope that they find ways to get scientists exposing them to the scientific state of the art.
I'm not sure I want scientists making policy. But they sure should be educating those who do.
Brightnoon, do you perceive the consensus here that we've heard your case advanced by far better advocates and no one is buying it. I'm sorry you're absorbed in this "culture war" offensive. You have your opinion and, believe me, you're welcome to it. However your lack of understanding is manifest in your choice to treat the global warming issue in isolation of the many other environmental threats that are emerging at the same time, almost all of them to some degree related to overpopulation and overconsumption.
For example, Bright One, we're emptying our oceans, depleting global fisheries that represent the key source of protein for most of the world's population. Add into that desertification, deforestation, freshwater (surface and groundwater) exhaustion, air/water/soil contamination, terrorism, nuclear proliferation and other threats to global security. You're so obsessed with the bark of one tree that you're totally losing sight of the forest of issues endangering mankind.
In 30-40 years from now you may wish that you and those like you had opened their eyes when you had the chance.
Could you prove this statement?
I'll save my thoughts for the thinking. Good day.
Scientists Agree Human-induced Global Warming Is Real, Survey Says
ScienceDaily (Jan. 21, 2009)
While the harsh winter pounding many areas of North America and Europe seemingly contradicts the fact that global warming continues unabated, a new survey finds consensus among scientists about the reality of climate change and its likely cause.
A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.
Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted the survey late last year.
The findings appear January 19 in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union.
In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.
Experts in academia and government research centers were e-mailed invitations to participate in the on-line poll conducted by the website questionpro.com. Only those invited could participate and computer IP addresses of participants were recorded and used to prevent repeat voting. Questions used were reviewed by a polling expert who checked for bias in phrasing, such as suggesting an answer by the way a question was worded. The nine-question survey was short, taking just a few minutes to complete.
Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.
"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," he said. "Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."
He was not surprised, however, by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.
"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."
Doran and Kendall Zimmerman conclude that "the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes." The challenge now, they write, is how to effectively communicate this to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.
I get kinda angry when people dispute that global warming is not caused by humans because I see the polar bears drowning and these people turn there backs and say no its not us, i think it's pretty irresponsible, sorry guys i just do.
Yes, let us return to the pollution in the city streets caused by horse transportation. That pollution of horse feces all over the place, was many times worse than carbon, and now, with the many-fold increase in population, and the need for more transportation, would be overwhelming, and impossible to tolerate. So we would not have efficient transportation, and also, far worse pollution. Good thinking!
I am not a climate scientist, but