David Postman has some coverage of Dino Rossi's recent statements on "global warming" and environmental policy that bear some additional discussion.
Postman seems to detect a shift in Rossi's thinking where it's unclear such a change exists:
But Rossi has had a recent epiphany on global warming. The P-I reports that "Rossi said there's no doubt the planet is warming."Rossi was asked about global warming at the Port Orchard Chamber of Commerce in March. There he said "there's still a lot of debate going on in this."
I know a lot of people say, 'Why bother with long-term planning if Al Gore says the world's going to end in 10 years or 15 years. But there are a lot of scientists who disagree, so we'll see how this debate goes.Two weeks ago, Rossi wouldn't say whether he thought global warming was real. He was quick to say it didn't matter whether it was real because it was important to clean up the air regardless of whether there is scientific consensus on climate change. He told Times reporter Andrew Garber:
It doesn't matter whether you believe in one scientist or another. The bottom line is we need to make reasonable plans to reduce carbon emissions and make improvements in our environment.Despite repeated questions, Rossi refused to say whether he personally believed global warming was real, saying, "I'm not a scientist."
There is a distinction here that is often missed in today's conventional wisdom that construes acceptance that the earth has recently gone through a period of warming with the idea that mankind is largely to blame for it. One can easily believe the former - especially given the earth's history of significant climate shifts long before the automobile - and not fully embrace the latter. Rossi's position seems consistent with that view.
Moreover, Rossi's position seems largely consistent with what I wrote on energy policy last week. That being, a focus on environmentally prudent policies - especially those that reduce dependence on oil - is clearly the right step in the times in which we live. Environmental policy viewed through the lens that man is always the bad guy and that related improvements must lead to substantial reductions in carbon emissions uber alles is not.
And again, while conventional wisdom, including in the media, isn't quite at that point, there are reasons to push back against the global warming zealots (see here, here, here, and here). Such stories aren't receiving much attention in the United States. But that doesn't mean the antidote to global warming hysteria shouldn't be analyzed and taken into account when crafting environmental programs.
The economics of oil prices might be a tipping point to some policies that environmentalists have long supported (shifts to higher mileage vehicles, less use of fossil fuels for daily energy needs, etc.). It also happens to mean such changes will occur because individuals and businesses are self-selecting those steps, not because of policy mandates passed because Al Gore and the Sierra Club insist it to be true.
Posted by Eric Earling at May 28, 2008 07:31 AM | Email ThisI have a question for the Global Warming Zealots, If man is to blame then are they going to ban man from the Earth? They seem to want to ban everything else that they claim contributes to global warming so would that not be the next logical step?
Posted by: TrueSoldier on May 28, 2008 07:35 AMAs with any religion, they won't be happy until you are a true believer and have a personal relationship with Albert Gore and his mother Gaia.
Posted by: John McDonald on May 28, 2008 07:35 AMPerhaps this is Rossi Jujutsu ... more Hydro and Nuclear power to reduce CO2, I'd be for that.
I am a scientist and if you really want to stop global warming, don't focus on C02. Instead, attack the biggest contributors: pull water vapor out of the air, change the tilt of the earth, and cool the sun. Anything else is a waste of money and effort.
In 6th grade science class, we learned life began at conception, except by college, life didn't begin until it came from the womb because you wanted the right to kill it.
Never mind that lots of animals don't have a womb/birth event and so according to a Liberal Democrat Scientist are never technically alive. Never mind that you have to kill the baby, that you claim isn't alive.
I could write a book on Liberal scientist dogma, Global warming is only the latest dung pile of liberal pseudo-science. Yes Global warming is real, for the past 10,000 years the world has warmed, sea levels have risen 400 feet AND THANK GOD. Because Seattle used to be under 3000 feet of ICE. Go to Paradise Lodge and look at the big animation of glacial retreat over the past 10,000 years.
The world has cooled since 1998 according to EVERY SINGLE raw data temperature measurement on earth and above the earth and is now only about 0.1 C above the long-term average. So much for the exponential increasing temperature hype.
Posted by: John McDonald on May 28, 2008 07:54 AMHave you taken Al Gore into your heart as your own personal savior from global warming?
--
Rossi was spot on with his answers to this crap. Let's stop letting frantic idiots throw Washingtonian's dollars into a volcano to appease the global warming gods.
31,000 scientists saying, "whoa, let's look at this a little closer"; come on Rossi, attack the issue.
Eric, I read your quotes, the article and also mostly agree with your viewpoint on GW hysteria; however, Rossi gave a less than satisfactory answer.
We need some leaders in this country to step up and confront this loser idea. It's what being a conservative and Republican is all about. We had the Dan Evans and others in the late 60s (RINOs today) go along with the New Deal- welfare and all sorts of social experimentation. See what it got us. Now we can't get rid of it.
It is the essence of the conservative revolution of the 80s and 90s in the USA and now in Europe and Canada.
Please don't let the movement die because you want the power and you see the pendulum go the other way. At least jump on the pendulum and weigh it down so it doesn't go all the way. Please!!
Posted by: swatter on May 28, 2008 08:22 AMA truer statement was never made! :)
Posted by: Duffman on May 28, 2008 08:25 AMPope = Al Gore
Father God = Mother Gaia
66 Holy Books in the Bible = Earth in the Balance, Silent Spring, The Population Bomb, Natural Capitalism, Our Stolen Future, etc. in 200 years they will compile these into a single holy book.
Prophets (Daniel, Ezekiel) = Jim Hanson, et al.
Easter = Earth Day
Tithes = Donations to Sierra Club, World Wildlife fund, etc.
Good works for people (poor, sick) = Good works for animals
Church Elders = EPA
Abortion Protesters = Green Peace
Revelations = 50 years of Global Warming
Indulgences = Carbon Credits
Creation Story = Evolution Story, I bet they will break out the flannel graphics next :-), those of you who sat in sunday school a long time ago know what I mean
Inquistion = current political movement against non-believer scientists
Christianity Today = National Geographic
FLDS = ELF
"Like their (communist) predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality."
"In the past, it was in the name of the Marxists or of the proletariat - this time, in the name of the planet."
"It could be even true that we are now at a stage where mere facts, reason and truths are powerless in the face of the global warming propaganda."
Czech President Klaus ready to debate Gore on climate change
Posted by: Reality on May 28, 2008 08:42 AMAlbertmas is celebrated by decorating live outdoor trees, giving gifts wrapped in hemp cloth to be used the next year. Gifts can only be given if they were manufacturerd within 50 miles of your teepee and are biodegradable.
We tell our kids about how Albert dedicated his life to us, so that we could have a new life, one full of hope and without enviro sin.
We tell our kids that their used to be a Santa Claus, but Global warming caused all the ice to melt and Santa and his raindeer drowned with the polar bears.
Have a holly jolly Albertmas, next year.
(Stem Cells) you dem's have lost that one SO many times!
I wouldn't speak on medical stuff if you really don't know zip about it. )-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 28, 2008 09:08 AMI admit that I do not know what the temperature of the earth will be in 50 years. but I am willing to wait and see before I take drastic steps that could damage the economy. However, nuclear power does not seem all that risky so we can go ahead with it IMHO since it is cost competitive and can be produced domestically. The fact that it does not produce CO2 is largely irrelevant as far as I am concerned but if it broadens support for nuclear power that is fine.
Posted by: KW64 on May 28, 2008 09:13 AMSmart move. Don't say zip about it until it's time. That way the Dem's, PI and the Times will have noting to cry about.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 28, 2008 09:19 AMI don't want "feelings" I want fact. That is thr trouble with you liberals, you ignore fact and advance "
feelings".
Thanks in advance.
is your man Kerry/Obama/Governor capable of 'straight answers'.
_______________________
Fixed it for-ya.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 28, 2008 09:35 AMThose who even deign to challenge the orthodoxy of the Climate Priests are sent off to Siberia (which isn't that bad these days due to increasing temperatures).
Posted by: John Bailo on May 28, 2008 10:15 AMAnd also, why are other planets warming?
Thanks.
Posted by: Gary on May 28, 2008 11:36 AMAs a leader of people with a semi-public voice (in my own little sphere of influence) I'd have said exactly the same thing as Dino. He isn't a scientist and global warming isn't an opinion based concept. It is of a scientific determination. The items you sited, abortion and stem cell research have their opinion bases in faith, not science. By putting the two on the same level of thinking you are guilty of creating a logical fallacy, thereby nagating the statement of supposed fact.
Everyone else,
Global warming is not a cult (except maybe a cult of personality) or an alter-religion. Nobody's praying to Gaia or some other god when they mention global warming. There are some scientists that believe it outright and others that call it a farce. It is a scientific debate that has caused mass hysteria. I'm sure we all remember the "global cooling" hysteria that went around for a few years where scientists had discussed on a minor level pumping soot into the atmosphere to raise the temerature.
The the thing I'm trying to say is that none of us should be too hasty jumping to judgement when nowhere near all the data is in. We have only small snippets of fact on this matter and probably won't for some time to come. Especially since bandwagoners decide to pull their scientist dejour onto the random talk show of the hour. They should be presenting scientific studies to scientific journals not the wall street journal.
Forgive me Gary...has Sir Dino said the above? I didn't know he had; I've read where he inferred that scientists do not all agree but I don't recall a quote from him saying that 'he doesn't believe the primary cause of climate change to be a settled science'...can you link me to that quote? :)
Posted by: Duffman on May 28, 2008 11:49 AM1. The Earth is warming slightly mostly due to natural causes (sun, earth rotation, etc.) and has been for the past 10 to 15K years - we are only up 0.1 C from long term average as of 2008, down from around 0.5 - 0.6 C in 2007. (NOAA, UofA, UofCO data)
2. CO2 is increasing due to the buring of fossil fuels, however this has only a slight impact in temperature (0.1C so far). Greater local impact is due to urban heating effects like pavement, concrete, air conditioners, etc. (Hawaii)
3. There are as many if not more positive impacts with higher CO2 and warming; for example, fewer deaths due to cold, more plant productivity, less energy use for heating, greater rainfall. (Numerous studies with excessive CO2, google CO2 and plant growth)
4. As of 2008, the scientists who espoused that Hurricanes, Tornados, etc. are linked tightly to Global warming have completely backed off and now acknowledge that Hurricanes are not closely tied to global warming. (Hurricane Center) Unfortunately, much of the media still hasn't caught up with the science and continues to spread this falsehood.
There are no significant disagreements on the above points among the primary data gatherers. Much of the disagreements are: disagreement about SPECULATION of what MIGHT Happen (i.e. will the gulf stream shut down) and disagreement that man caused changes are good or bad (more of a moral religious arguement then anything else)
I think the political scramble to get the taxes put in place is due to the concern that the earth will continue to cool in 2008 and 2009. If cooling continues in 2008 like it did in the later part of 2007 (-0.5 drop), then the global warming crowd should lose significant political power.
Even so, I think moving to Hydro, Nuke, Solar, Wind power, is the right thing to do.
Posted by: John McDonald on May 28, 2008 12:44 PMOpen your eyes and ask cui bono? ...besides big Al
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on May 28, 2008 12:49 PM BARACK OBAMA:
The chicken crossed the road because it was time for a CHANGE! The
chicken wanted CHANGE!
JOHN McCAIN:
My friends, that chicken crossed the road because he recognized the
need to engage in cooperation and dialogue with all the chickens on
the other side of the road.
HILLARY CLINTON:
When I was First Lady, I personally helped that little chicken to
cross the road. This experience makes me uniquely qualified to
ensure -- right from Day One! -- that every chicken in this country
gets the chance it deserves to cross the road. But then, this
really isn't about me.......
DR. PHIL:
The problem we have here is that this chicken won't realize that he
must first deal with the problem on 'THIS' side of the road before
it goes after the problem on the 'OTHER SIDE' of the road. What we
need to do is help him realize how stupid he's acting by not taking
on his 'CURRENT' problems before adding 'NEW' problems.
OPRAH:
Well, I understand that the chicken is having problems, which is why
he wants to cross this road so bad. So instead of having the chicken
learn from his mistakes and take falls, which is a part of life, I'm
going to give this chicken a car so that he can just drive across
the road and not live his life like the rest of the chickens.
GEORGE W. BUSH:
We don't really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want
to know if the chicken is on our side of the road, or not. The
chicken is either against us, or for us. There is no middle ground here.
ANDERSON COOPER - CNN:
We have reason to believe there is a chicken, but we have not yet
been allowed to have access to the other side of the road.
JOHN KERRY:
Although I voted to let the chicken cross the road, I am now against
it! It was the wrong road to cross, and I was misled about the
chicken's intentions. I am not for it now, and will remain against it.
NANCY GRACE:
That chicken crossed the road because he's GUILTY! You can see it in
his eyes and the way he walks.
PAT BUCHANAN:
To steal the job of a decent, hardworking American.
DR SEUSS:
Did the chicken cross the road? Did he cross it with a toad?
Yes, the chicken crossed the road, but why it crossed I've not been
told.
ERNEST HEMINGWAY:
To die in the rain. Alone.
JERRY FALWELL:
Because the chicken was gay! Can't you people see the plain truth?
That's why they call it the 'other side. Yes, my friends, that
chicken is gay. And if you eat that chicken, you will become gay
too. I say we boycott all chickens until we sort out this
abomination that the liberal media white washes with seemingly
harmless phrases like 'the other side. That chicken should not be
crossing the road. It's as plain and as simple as that.
GRANDPA:
In my day we didn't ask why the chicken crossed the road. Somebody
told us the chicken crossed the road, and that was good enough..
BARBARA WALTERS:
Isn't that interesting? In a few moments, we will be listening to
the chicken tell, for the first time, the heart warming story of how
it experienced a serious case of molting, and went on to accomplish
its life long dream of crossing the road.
ARISTOTLE:
It is the nature of chickens to cross the road.
JOHN LENNON:
Imagine all the chickens in the world crossing roads together, in peace.
BILL GATES:
I have just released eChicken2007, which will not only cross roads,
but will lay eggs, file your important documents, and balance your
check book. Internet Explorer is an integral part of the Chicken.
This new platform is much more stable and will never
cra...#@&&;,^(C% ....... Reboot.
ALBERT EINSTEIN:
Did the chicken really cross the road, or did the road move beneath
the chicken?
BILL CLINTON:
I did not cross the road with THAT chicken. What is your definition
of chicken?
COLONEL SANDERS:
Did I miss one?
DICK CHENEY:
Where's my gun?
That was hillarious. Is this yours or did you copy it from someone.
Posted by: REBEL on May 28, 2008 01:11 PMI think if I'm gonna have to dislike the next President, I'd rather it be a Democrat :)
I don't know... maybe things can change before November.
Posted by: Gary on May 28, 2008 01:23 PMMcCain wouldn't be able to stop them even if he were inclined to do so, which I do not believe that he is.
Posted by: Kato on May 28, 2008 01:49 PMAnd even if it were not a hoax, other papers show that there's not a damn bit that we could do to stop the above forces, even if we tried. Not to mention that any perceived threat is vague, and long term. And we have far more pressing diseases, energy problems, and other world strife with which to concern ourselves in the here and now.
The AGW religionists desperately want the average American to buy their garbage, and to invest in their green companies so they can make a buck.
But it will not come to pass because the average Joe is far more concerned with his own hide. Energy prices, and the obvious empirical evaluation that it is getting colder will factor in to personal decisions, and not Al Gore's guilt trips.
And the left has shot themselves in the foot here too. As the left has desperately tried to erase the effects of the primitive religious theological philosophies, they have created legions of immoral people who are no longer persuaded by guilt. So what makes the left think that their hedonistic hordes are any more likely to succumb to the guilt of Environmental Hysteria than the guilt of theology? Not a whole lot if they bothered to think a step ahead of their foolishness. But they don't, everything is for short term gain and means toward Democrat political power.
This too shall pass. Smart politicians like Rossi will evade the media BS, get in to office based on widespread popular appeal and sanity, and then roll back this statist fear mongering.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 28, 2008 01:58 PMThis week it's the acidic ocean, with tons of space in all the leftist rags and teasers all day on the TV.
But not one single mention of a a PH number.
You gotta wonder, what next?
Toxic Darkness???
Dangerous sunlight levels???
Posted by: Independent Voter on May 28, 2008 05:16 PMRossi should lay down the gauntlet and state his position - indeterminate is a position in this debate.
Nothing to say about Iraq here - just abiding by the one subject limit.
Posted by: KS on May 28, 2008 07:04 PMSalt is alkaline, somewhere above 7 on the PH scale.
If the ocean is still salty, it's not acidic.
And that's why there have been no PH numbers quoted.
Al Gore has refused every single debate with climate scientists, politicians, etc. Gore knows that if the public heard a head to head with him and someone who is actually knowledgeable, he would lose badly. So he just refuses to debate. He's a coward and an charlatan.
The good news is that when this whole hoax is done playing out, Gore will be a laugh track for human history. He will be remembered only as the guy who thought he invented the Internet and then topped that by playing Chicken Little to a global climate hoax.
Time is on our side.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 28, 2008 07:52 PMGlobal Warming Skeptics Plot 'Carbon Belch Day'
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on May 28, 2008 07:56 PMYou think that's good, check out what the do on prime time TV.
I'd hate to be the KenJen of that game show!
Posted by: Shaghai Dan on May 28, 2008 08:05 PMNot a popular theory, because...well, it's difficult to regulate the sun - and frankly, there's no money in it.
Posted by: Denni on May 28, 2008 09:32 PMThat was great about the chicken deal.
How about this one from Rev Wright:
Rev Wright: The chicken crossed the road because the government gave the chicken a disease to force him to cross roads. I say God D**n the United States for this travisty!
Posted by: TrueSoldier on May 28, 2008 11:29 PMNo, I've never run in an election. I'm not the guy on the "Keep Gus Working for Us" tee shirts. I'm not even living in Washington state. I do, however, have influence over people in my own circle of the world. It's not government or governmentally political. Politicians, CEOs, Pastors, rotary club leaders, even video game guild leaders all have to be careful of what they say and get all the information before they put things out as official. You have a responsibility to say the right thing, not the expedient thing.
Every adult in Britain should be forced to carry 'carbon ration cards', say MPs
"Every adult should be forced to use a 'carbon ration card' when they pay for petrol, airline tickets or household energy, MPs say.
The influential Environmental Audit Committee says a personal carbon trading scheme is the best and fairest way of cutting Britain's CO2 emissions without penalising the poor.
Under the scheme, everyone would be given an annual carbon allowance to use when buying oil, gas, electricity and flights."
Coming soon to a Democrat Congressional Committee near you?...
Posted by: Bill H on May 29, 2008 07:49 AMA time comes when you have to decide if you have enough information to make a concise statement. For me, I believe I have enough to state that people who have bought into the global warming craze are in many cases substituting Gaia for their need for a belief system, in other words their need for a higher power. So to say that global warming belief has become a religion is not erroneous. It may be wrong to blanket all people with that. You will have to admit that there is all the potential for the use of global warming fear tactics to be used for other than noble reasons. All one has to do is follow the money making, power building potential of a mass belief in something like this. Pseudo scientists get grants to live on studying the phenomenon. Politicians use it as an attention getting tool preying on the fears of the electorate, while telling us that they are going to be our saviour.
I have enough information when 31,000 scientists say that global warming science is flawed.
As far as abortion and stem cell research goes there is science involved that can help make a decision against those two things. You just have to be informed.
I know that abortion is wrong because I have researched and seen myself when a fetus begins to show signs of life, so to me that makes it valuable. The only difference remaining is how valuable that life is to others. The evidence is clear that a fetus shows signs of life very early in its development. It is incontrovertible. If you have the knowledge yet you still desire abortion at all stages of development, it just means that you do not hold human life to be very important.
Your only excuse for desiring abortions at all stages of development, yet you give importance to human life, would be ignorance. You have been told by people with an antihuman life agenda that fetuses are not yet alive, they feel no pain, they are not viable outside of the womb, etc... The only argument here that holds any water is the 'viable outside of the womb argument. To that I say so what.
As for stem cell research, well that requires the demise of a fetus doesn't it? I am not totally against this, however, I'm also not sold on the belief that any great breakthrough in medicine is necessarily going to occur from such study.
My question for you then is, how long are you going to wait before you take a stand? The difference between a conservative and a 'progressive' is that I hope that when new information comes out that a conservative is open minded enough to change their mind and go with the new information, I know that progressives are not so open minded.
We have been talking about these subjects for decades now. When in your world is all the information going to be in so you can finally take a stand?
Posted by: REBEL on May 29, 2008 08:15 AMHowever, I'm going to counter argue most of it with a prefaced "what I'm for" before the argument.
1. Global warming
(Me: Damned skippy the world is warming! But it sure as hell ain't our fault for the most part. Maybe the temperature on Venus is our fault as well? Yeah, I didn't think so. Global warming being caused by CO2 emissions is junk science IMO. It's not a religion though. It's a problem with what some people call "sheeple".)
**To your 31,000 scientists that are skeptical there is a "consensus" of multiple other thousands, forgive my lack of a number, that decry the opposite. There are models that have shown an increase in CO2 can cause global warming and there are other models that show the exact opposite. Most of each variety come from accepted scientific principles. There is a lot of data that is not available.
2. Abortion
(At some point after conception God comes down from the heavens and gifts a fetus with a soul. I personally believe that day comes somewere around the beginning of the second trimester. The fetus is fully formed and begins to react to proper stimuli. It makes sense to me this is when it happens.)
**When "exactly" is the human soul given to a child, a fetus? Is it while it's still just a blob of cells? Is it when it responst to certain stimuli? Is it when it can feasably survive outside the womb? That is faith, not science.
3. Stem Cells
(There are at least four major colleges in the U.S. that are doing embrionic stem cell research without the aid of government funding. I see no reason why the government needs to be involved with this type of funding when there are so many other viable options available today. And it's a blob of cells with no form that they're working with, not a fetus.)
This again ties to one's faith, not science. A blob of pre-formed cells does not a child make. At least not scientifically. The "life begins at conception" is religious, not scientific.
================================================
So now that we've typed a few pages of debate over an issue none of us are willing to budge one iota has anyone learned anything? Has anyone's opinion changed? Was anyone educated? Probably not. When we draw lines and try to find out who's right or wrong we do everyone a disservice. The only thing discovered here are my personal opinions. They do not sway or guide you as you are hardened to your own opinions. We have accomplished nothing.
I'm making my stand. I'm making it against debate instead of discussion. I'm making it against the same thing that drove George Washington from office, the spirit of party.