|
Some Politicans do not Believe in Global Warming
Only the moronic GOP, of course.The political discussion about global warming has lurched dramatically in four years -- even as the scientific consensus has changed little. McCain's 2007 description remains the scientific consensus: Human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, is pumping carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and warming the planet. But that scientific conclusion has become a lively point of debate in the GOP presidential campaign. Joining Perry on the skeptical side, for example, is Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), who suggested Wednesday that "manufactured science" underpins what a questioner called the "man-made climate-change myth." Let's just say a very weak correlation, shall we? Why does everything have to be black or white? The nominal GOP front-runner, Mitt Romney, drew sharp fire from conservatives when he said in June that he accepts the scientific view that the planet is getting warmer and that humans are part of the reason. Part of the reason? Crackpot! Heretic! TEA PARTIER!! Historically, climate change has ranked near the bottom of issues that voters care about as they evaluate presidential candidates. The major parties' nominees endorsed the Government leads the way again. More tax, more control. But even as it appeared that the government might take sweeping action on climate change, the political opposition intensified. Frightened, perhaps, by the Obamacare time-bomb? President Obama favored a nationwide system in which industries would have to cap their carbon dioxide emissions and trade pollution allowances with one another. The then-Democratic-controlled House passed this "cap-and-trade" system in June 2009, but the plan stalled in the Senate after Republicans and major industries criticized it as a "cap-and-tax" system that would escalate energy costs. Not to mention line the Goracle's pockets. The battleground shifted to the Environmental Protection Agency, which in December 2009 determined that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare. That "endangerment finding" paved the way for regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. GOP lawmakers and industry groups fought the plan, calling it a job-killing tax and an example of government overreach. Don't worry, dear readers; I'm sure the WaPo will rebut that silliness! During this period, Americans -- particularly conservative Republicans -- became less convinced about global-warming science. See? Some in the tea party seized on the issue as a rallying cry in last year's election, which brought dozens of new members to Congress who reject a connection between human activity and climate change. Missteps by scientists have given critics ammunition. Most notorious were "Climate-gate" e-mails hacked from computers at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Britain in 2009. Embarrassing errors were also found in a seminal 2007 report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was supposed to establish, beyond question, the scientific consensus. The science is settled, just like gravity! One passage in the 3,000-page report, for example, stated that massive glaciers in the Himalayas would vanish by 2035 -- which isn't true. First of all, it's a 1991 report on the hydrology of glacier runoff, not AGW. Second, it presumed the current (whatever that was - 1980's? 1990-1991?) trends continued, - a mighty big if, since the trend has already been busted. Third, it said (in that case) some glaciers would be greatly reduced, not disappear. Fourth, the timeline for this potential change was 2350, not 2035. So the IPCC took three giant leaps of faith and a simple typo to manufacture their conclusion. Since everyone believed it, it instantly became more proof. One of the twists in the debate is that the data that show the planet warming over the past century -- data that skeptics often deride as untrustworthy -- also show that the rate of warming has slowed in the past decade or so. "The warming has slowed since 1998," said Tom Peterson, chief scientist for NOAA's National Climatic Data Center. But no one sees a possible conflict between that statement and the next one? The most recent decade is still the warmest on record -- warmer than the 1990s, which were warmer than the 1980s. And NOAA and NASA rate 2010 as tied with 2005 as the warmest year ever measured. A 2010 study in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences surveyed 1,372 climate scientists and found that 97 to 98 percent agreed that humans are contributing to global warming. So the science is settled? Influential conservatives have pushed climate science to the fore of Republican politics. When Romney endorsed the consensus scientific view, talk-radio titan Rush Limbaugh immediately declared: "Bye-bye, nomination. Another one down." Thus concludes the case for AGW - if Rush is against it, it must be true! Posted by: Bobby 2011-08-20 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=328317 |