PDA

View Full Version : Another frickin global warming thread.



The Evil Genius
July-11th-2002, 11:49 AM
I know, I know. More pot stirring from the liberals right?

Well..it appears that even some of the GOP is changing its view on whether global warming exists or not.

Anyways...here the article for you to digest.



Bush Adviser Touts Environment Moves
Thu Jul 11,10:59 AM ET
By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush ( news - web sites)'s decision to withdraw from an international climate treaty last year will, in the long run, save billions of dollars and millions of jobs, his top environmental adviser told a Senate panel Thursday.


"The Kyoto Protocol ( news - web sites) would have cost our economy up to $400 billion and caused the loss of up to 4.9 million jobs, risking the welfare of the American people and American workers," said James L. Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

Connaughton and Bush's senior advisers for science and economic matters also presented White House views on climate change Thursday before Democratic senators in charge of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.

Sen. John Kerry ( news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., said the administration must move beyond mere "rhetoric" in setting goals for long-term cuts in emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases blamed by many scientists for global warming ( news - web sites).

Bush's plan calls for voluntary action by industry contrary to the treaty negotiated in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 that calls for mandatory reduction of those gases by industrial nations.

The Bush administration says it may need as long as five years to develop scientific forecasts before deciding how best to address global warming.

Assistant Commerce Secretary James R. Mahoney told senators Thursday, as he did a House committee Wednesday, that the administration is "now ready to move into a new time of differentiation and strategy evaluation" extending over the next two to five years — depending on whether President Bush is re-elected in November 2004 — that would help the nation develop strategies to minimize climate change risks.

Rep. Sherwood Boehlert ( news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y., chairman of the House Science Committee, praised the competence of administration officials but expressed dissatisfaction with what they described as limited information being provided about the White House's climate change policies.

"We really don't have a policy" on global warming, said Rep. Mark Udall ( news, bio, voting record), D-Colo.

John H. Marburger III, the White House science adviser, appeared before the Senate and House committees with Mahoney, saying humans have been a major producer of greenhouse gases, and that these gases — often produced by the burning of oil and coal — have contributed to climate warming.

Marburger's remark comes a month after Bush dismissed a report his administration submitted to the United Nations ( news - web sites) as having been "put out by the bureaucracy."

The report mostly blamed human activity for global warming but acknowledged some lingering scientific uncertainties.

The White House favors a response to global warming that relies on increased spending on science and technology and on voluntary, not mandatory, measures to slow the rate of growth in gas emissions.

"We know we have to make very large changes if this turns out to be a problem," Marburger told the panel Wednesday. "The consequences of human-induced global warming could be quite severe."

Mahoney seemed more convinced of the science behind global warming.

"The issue isn't, 'Is there a problem?'" Mahoney said. "The issue is, 'What specifically do we do about the problem?'"

Art
July-11th-2002, 11:59 AM
One hundred years and 1 degree increase in temperature. I'm hoping for 10 or so so I can grill longer in the winter. Global warming may well exist. Whether we have any impact on that or not is the question for debate, as it has always been.

But, by all means, believe the weather forecast that couldn't tell me we would get 4 inches of rain yesterday but can tell me what'll happen in 100 years. Good luck :).

The Evil Genius
July-11th-2002, 12:06 PM
I know, I know. ;)

Although, if you guys felt the 115 degree temps here in Sacramento yesterday, which was 20 degrees higher than normal, you would be a believer in manmade global warming :D

Peace.

Romo
July-11th-2002, 01:18 PM
I just wish global warming was more consistant. Sure up in here in the freezing north of Canada its getting warmer but only in the summers. Winters are just as cold as ever. Our summers here are bad. At least in Sacramento its a dry heat. Here we get that nasty humidity.

In the summer we get Humidex and Heat Warnings. In the winter we get Wind Chill.

The Evil Genius
July-11th-2002, 01:32 PM
Well I grew up in Virginia Beach, Virginia - so I do know about the Humidity part!

But you are right - it is dry in Sacramento in the heat times. No wind adds to the bad air also.

Skins24
July-11th-2002, 02:48 PM
California weather is just strange Evil, I don't know if that has to do with global warming.
It can be 134 degrees but you go several miles away it's in the 70s.
Mountains...
Valleys...
Deserts...
Cool Ocean...

Alot of the west is like that.
You can be baking in the sun in shorts, tee shirts. Drive for an hour, you're throwing snowballs (still in shorts, tee shirts). <--True story; Wyoming - mid summer.

fansince62
July-11th-2002, 04:08 PM
i remeber sitting in a chemistry class as an undergraduate lo these many years ago listening to the professor argue the "scietific" facts about how the SuperSonic Transport and similar transportation was going to rip up the ozone layer. the science was found faulty decades later.

how do thes guys get to causes for a system as complex as the atmosphere when they can't even predict the weather next week for, let's say, NYC? and, mind you, these are politicans quoted above - and of a particular stripe at that. kyoto treaty had many more issues than just pure science. reminds me of the same malarky that followed the law of the sea debacle a decade earlier.

The Evil Genius
July-11th-2002, 04:13 PM
Yeah, but you KNOW they are speaking the truth here - they are GOPers :laugh:

Pete
July-11th-2002, 06:18 PM
I've never followed the subject much, but If you ask me the planet is getting hotter. I've watched the weather patterns change over the past 17 years. The weather in S Florida has changed more then slightly in that time. In 84, you could set your watch by the afternoon showers in the rainy season. By 90, the season was starting about a month later, with earlier showers and not every day. By 95, you couldn't count on rain every day during season, but the winters were getting wetter. From 97 to 01, we have been at severe drout conditions every summer. It's gotten so bad, a guy actually got busted and put in jail for over watering his lawn to much last week, and were not even in a drout at this point.

The NE has also seen change. I would make a small fortune plowing snow all winter in the mid and late 70's. In the mid 80's, you could do just a little better then breaking even. Most of the foks I plowed with for years have given it up at this point for uninployment in winter. Were not talking plowing drivways, were talking malls, and large shopping centers. The owner of the company that held the contracts would get a flat rate for the season, but the drivers were subcontracting and only paid when they worked. The big guy still gets his money, and makes more when it doesn't snow. The drivers were mostly landscapers, or truck drivers in the local quaries.

Common sence tells me were getting hotter. In another 17 years, Art may be able to grill very often in winter.

fansince62
July-13th-2002, 09:36 AM
pete......you may or may not be right......but the issue is what are the causes? do we have a sound, systemic understanding of what is going on? there have been "galactic" changes in the world climate long before man ever ventured upon the scene. what is the evidence, what are the causes, to what degree do "human generated products" produce these changes? given the latter, will changes in "human generated products" produce measureable effects/benefits, and what is the cost/benefit thinking that goes into the public decision process? once again, the thinking appears rather slipshod in all of this and the public policy presrciptions appear to really be just another shroud for hidden agendas over how the production process should be controlled.