Thursday, November 18, 2004

McCain Criticizes Bush on Climate Change

Senator John McCain yesterday called the White House stance on climate change "terribly disappointing" and said inaction in the face of mounting scientific data was unjustified...The hearings have been organized in part to build a case for the McCain-Lieberman bill, called the Climate Stewardship Act. Mr. McCain said that the bill, which he describes as modest, had probably lost some support in the Senate because of the election results, but that he looked at this as a temporary setback.
"We got 43 votes," he said of the last vote on the bill, a year ago. "We may get less than that given the change in the Senate. But we need to get people on the record.'' After a McCain climate hearing in September, for example, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian group opposed to regulations as a solution to most environmental problems, described the gathering as "another pep rally to build support for his energy rationing legislation" and said it had "focused on junk science." But Mr. McCain said yesterday that the evidence, which he called alarming, was clearer than ever. Particularly disturbing, he went on, is the rapid pace of warming. "The Inuit language for 10,000 years never had a word for robin," he said, "and now there are robins all over their villages."

If you have a small mole on your hand, it doesn't go away and then starts to grow, do you ignore it or do you see a Doctor about it? The mole may be benign or it could be malignent, you just don't know. Lets say that you do go see the Doctor and he says that he can't tell by just looking at it, he is going to need a biopsy. Biopsies cost money and time out of your day. Do you get it done or not? Lets say you get it done. The Doctor sends the specimen to a lab where a technician examines it. A week later, the Doctor calls you up and tells you that it was a very difficult specimene to determine. The lab had 10 different people look at it. 9 say it is cancerous and one says it is benign. The Doctor tells you that the best bet it to get it removed, but it could be a little painful for a while and is going to cost you $500. The second option is to watch and wait, but if the mole turns out to be malignant and you wait, they will have to amputate your hand, and that is assuming that it does not spread to other parts of your body and doesn't outright kill you. Do you get it done? Do you dismiss the 9 Doctors and listen to the 1? The one could be right. The nine are most likely right.

Most people would tell you that you are a fool if you don't get it removed. Why take chances, right? Global warming is the same thing. No scientific study can ever prove 100% the causes or the reprcussions of global warming. No study acan even prove 100% that global warming is occuring. Of course, no study has been yet preformed that can prove 100% that gravity exists either. 99% of the scientific data shows global warming is occuring and will have serious reprecusions. Why wait? why take the chance? We are playing with the world our children and our children's children will have to live in. I am putting my money on the chances that if I jump up, I will come down. I can't prove it, but I have a pretty good idea of what is going to happen whether I choose to believe in gravity or not. I am also willing to bet that we are having an effect on the tempature of this planet. I can't prove it, but I have a pretty good idea of what is going on. Lets not wait until they have to amputate a hand... or worse.


Michael_the_Archangel said...

Oh come on Dingo, you're falling for this crap too? Man you are a card carrying leftie. Gee, guess what else is happening? The speed of the earth spinning is slowing down, and trust me, it too is causing some problems - maybe we put some huge rocket engines around the world and fire them all at once to help the planet get back up to speed. Whadda ya think?

Quit watching 'The Day after Tommorrow' and look at some facts. Fact one - if we had been stupid enough to sign on to the Kyoto treaty, it would have required us to shutdown 1/3 of our energy production/consumption. Drive down your street and imagine one out of every three homes dark. One out of every three stores going out of business. What I see are folks going, "Yup, that's fine, as long as it's not my house or business."

What some proof that the science is flawed? Here are some links:,02679.cfm

And I could post tons more, sorry, while I applaud efforts to stay clean (emissions and pollution), I also acknowledge that we've made HUGE improvements over the last 30 years. Like government waste, there is more that we can do, but NOT throwing the baby out with the bath water like the Kyoto treaty would have had us do. We can always get better but using junk science to institute social reform isn't the way to go (IMHO).

Dingo said...

Michael, Michael, Michael... You are killing me here...I read your links. All of it is based on the work of Roy W. Spencer. Let me tell you something about him. First, to get his findings, he had to "readjust" all of the data. Second, the man is not exactly who I would turn to for an unbiased opinion on science. The man is very pro-energy business, taking a lot of money from the utility industry for his research. Tobacco scientist will show you evidence that cigarettes are non-addictive and don't cause disease. Do you believe them? Third, the man is a little wacky and thinks it is unfair that a deer can crap in a steam but humans can't dump sewage into them. He thinks polluters are over regulated and government should butt out. He believes that God gave us absolute dominion over the earth so we can do whatever we want to it and that environmentalism is anti-Christian. You have to give me something better that this.

The latest NASA data (2004) show a 20% decrease in polar ice caps. Dr. Spencer's data is based on 1997 numbers. Not only do I not trust his opinion, but his data is old. And for the sake of argument, say he is right and humans have no effect on the warming trend.... what is wrong about getting over our addiction to Middle East oil.