Jbuza wrote:Hey Bart,
Your are correct, I am posting articles that align with my belief about the subject.
My question still remains, what is the evidence that it is actually accoured?
I see nebulous claims that ice caps are melting, but I am having great trouble finding much evidence that is also clearly demonstrated with the actual data. Those places where I do find it claimed and data shown, it appears to be far too small a study to be reasonably extrapolated to the whole globe.
So in the abscencse of any clear evidence that global warming is in fact happening, and any clear evidence that if it happened that it would actually be a problem, than why all the doom and gloom?
Jbuza,
I often do the same thing in terms of taking my presupposed ideas and looking for evidence or people who are arguing that position. That is a very human thing that many do regardless of where they fall on the spectrum of politics. The problem with that approach is that it tends to entrench positions and not lead to a synthesis of new information where such information may in fact be very reasonable and lead to modified conclusions, if we'll be open-minded enough to consider it.
Have you taken the time to digest Rich's article and checked his sources?
You don't have to take an extremist position or give credence to those advocating catastrophe to recognize the issue. Most legitimate sources that I read recognize a normal warming trend independent of human contribution. The issue is that it is warming at a rate quicker than what is known in that regard would account for otherwise.
I don't think we need to be unreasonable or alarmist to recognize that over the past 150 years human activity, in terms of population growth and advancing technology, we are releasing more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. To say this has no effect is somewhat naive, don't you think?
I think we can certainly presume that there are natural processes that in turn pick up here. Increased Co2 for instance, is a prime resource for plants and maybe that simply increases plant growth; not necessarily a bad thing. But increased plant growth and photosynthesis has its own effects down several other chains too, doesn't it?
The point is that none of this takes place in a vacuum, nor is a zero-sum occurance. There is a domino effect that can take place and it doesn't always take much for a system to where it reaches a "tipping point" to where rapid and/or significant change and adaptation takes place.
We're in the midst of probably only being able to measure and understand the impact of emissions that for the time we've observed may be the result of things more in the industrial past than in terms of what is happening now.
What we do or don't do now may have significance that will not be reasonably observed or measured until after our life-times.
I don't believe that the majority of scientists or people more sensitive to this issue are motivated by a desire to return to log cabins or wood burning stoves (some may be but they are a decided fringe minority).
What is wrong with taking what is known and seeking to understand better what is happening and how we can adjust and react while admitting we don't have all the information?
Is it anti-American or anti-Christian to pause for a moment and think perhaps whether it is reasonable for us to individually respond by doing some of the things Rich concludes in his article?
What is wrong with recycling, carpooling or using mass transit? There are already established economic and societal reasons to do so.
On the governmental level, shouldn't we be investing to study and understand this issue better? Satellites and NASA climatological studies are worthy goals and reasonable investments aren't they?
Do you see that with the rest of the world catching up in terms of infrastructure and the availability of the automobile that there are some radical changes taking place that even looking at things conservatively and with a bias against overreacting, should lead a reasonable person to ask what the impact might be?
How much information is enough before we act? Do we need to confirm that the horse will leave the barn, before we decide to close the gate?
I completely understand the reaction against things like Gore's documentary. I haven't seen it yet and I've already expressed my reservations over what political motivations are probably entwined within it. I will watch it. Probably when it is out on DVD. I'm just wired as such that I think it is good to be familiar with major releases like this that are in the public forum. I don't take it that I have to watch everything. Gore has been a major political player in this arena. He may even have some information worthy of consideration, even if my framework of approach requires some modification and caution over leaping on his bandwagon.
I think it is irresponsible to define a position solely or even primarily by reaction to excesses from a particular political faction or worldview.
I think we need to be proactive and examine the material as objectively as we can and ask what we are contributing to the situation and how we can manage that impact while balancing all the other legitimate concerns.
That's my position anyway.
