Let’s crack this egg wide open.
Here’s what I understand so far:
————————————————————
Years back, a group of scientists came together and presented a case to the world based on their work.
They sought to show essentially three items:
a) Carbon Dioxide (CO2) gases are increasing due to human action.
b) CO2 causes a green-house gas effect that causes global warming. Global warming causes extreme climate change including extreme colds, warms and weather.
c) Unless CO2 levels decrease worldwide the planet will be damaged beyond a repairable state.
————————————————————
Now another group of scientists recently came out to try to disprove the ‘global warming agenda’ citing their own evidence.
They are seeking to show essentially these three items:
a) CO2 is a natural gas that is less harmful to environment than reported previously. Harmful gases such Carbon Monoxide should fall under government regulation but not CO2.
b) They have studied the green-house gas effect data presented and do not concur that this is the cause of climate change. The planet is undergoing cyclical changes not recorded previously due to lack of technology required.
c) CO2 levels and their mandated decrease is ‘politicizing science’ and not a scientific agenda but rather an anti-industry agenda.
————————————————————
I don’t pretend to have all the facts on this but I’ve listened to a lot of commentary on it, I can assure you.
The bottom line is that no significant figure in any government is coming forward about the one important issue to address:
CAN WE LIMIT CO2 GAS EMISSIONS AND CONTINUE TO GROW AS AN INDUSTRIAL NATION?
Those versed in this topic will know that certain major super-power nations (China & Russia) refuse to participate in carbon credit programs or CO2 gas mandates on their industries.
They believe that regulating such gases will cause a loss of profit necessary to maintain their populations. Or a similar case made in defense of themselves.
I would like to take the time and read both of these studies and all the data and every professional I can find who ever said / wrote anything about it. But this is what I see. One side brings a valid argument about how far we can do these actions and remain strong in industry and the other side brings a valid point that once enough damage is done in ignorance there is no return from ruin.
Michael Crichton, famed author, held the opinion before his death in 2008 that the combining of politics and science was something he saw as very possible in coming years and very dangerous in its nature. I tend to agree with the author of “Jurassic Park” but I don’t know if I fully trust some internet downloaded research data, and I’m not flying of to foreign countries to gather up all the documents either.
I just want to focus on empirical evidence when we talk science and focus on personal conviction when he talk politics. That’s all. Is that some crazy request?
I feel it important for those who didn’t know to know that the worldwide scientific community accepts the idea of green house gases effecting current climate changes.
————————————————————
And let us not forget the pure-politics side of this:
Former American Vice-President Al Gore of the Democratic Party has run up the ideological hill and he is not coming back down on this one.
He is behind the ‘carbon credit’ concept along with others. Gore remains one of the most controversial figures in certain circles of America because of his intractability on the global warming crisis-issue.
The Republican Party, long before any but bought-off scientists said word one on global warming, decried the whole thing a myth created in some liberal agenda book or manifested by what some called ‘religious-environmentalism.’
The study I mention are not bought-off scientists, as far my informational sources provide, but rather simply dissenting scientists from the group of scientists that initially presented the whole concept.
In the campaign for The White House this year (2008) each campaign had the same line on global warming:
“We need to do something about global climate change.”
The critical thing to know is that the vocal conservatives, prior to the RNC speech of John McCain where he directly addressed global warming, there was a constant smearing and mocking attitude of people who wanted to speak out on this issue of climate change. Then all of sudden they just stopped talking about it and mocking anyone about that. Not one more mention of those ‘crazy global warming kooks,’ for quite a long time.
I tend to believe they and most outspoken-Republicans did was actually read what I read when it came out like 8 years ago and now I can’t remember the name of. The Global Warming Treaty let’s call it for now, because that’s easy for me.
Another strange hush-factor that struck the limited-conservatives during the campaign is the whole immigration issue.
That’s another issue entirely but both candidates and the right-wing media just completely shut their traps on that issue, almost entirely to date.
The only reason it’s significant to bring up is that these loons that call others ‘Enviro-Nazis’ also bashed anyone who didn’t want to ‘kick the bums out of my country.’ They did this ten-fold on John McCain when he sought some kind of solution oriented legislation on the issue. Now they feel better about starting those old lines up again but nobody seems to want to actually do anything about it over in what I hear from Republican-land.
It is like a willingness to shove your head in the sand as far it will go. Then leave it there for the course of an entire campaign.
Evidence that the Republican Party is willing to engage in not only ‘Politi-science’ tactics but to a willing blindness to anything that is a serious issue in the nation.
They just want to talk about homosexuality or atheism while we go broke and choke to death.
Eric Lightborn
http://americapress.wordpress.com
December 22nd 2008
Eric Lightborn's Blog 