Nifty scientific fifty

Jeff Weimer, Chesapeake, VA — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 13:34:17 GMT

I take issue with the "head in the sand" comment. What I think he means is that the current administration doesn't agree with the current state of thought on the matter. The problem is that the statistical sample we have is so small and subject to error that any claims one way or the other are meaningless. One side says "we gotta do SOMETHING!" and the other asks "why should we?"

Nifty scientific fifty

Eco author Chris Eldridge — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 20:02:49 GMT

Al Gore has my vote, but as I always argue, there are other reasons to be an environmentalist other than things like global warming (which many people still don't believe). If I were to take out my pocketknife and carve my initials into a beautiful hardwood desk at the library, you would think I was an arrogant SOB with no other concerns but for myself. And yet, this is exactly how society is acting in regards to the environment. Aren't wastefulness and carelessness "Morally" wrong? Being green isn't just good for the environment. It saves us money, makes our water and food healthier, and reduces our dependency on oil, which can - at almost any moment - threaten our national security if it spikes. Americans buy cars and homes that are more for show than for functionality or efficiency. I'd rather invest my money in a home with disability-related features, an oversized garage (with a closet to reduce clutter), an alternate power source, and actual shop/office areas, than invest in a 35K car or truck that just isn't needed. If you think about it, why beat your own truck hauling things, when you can simply have things delivered for $30? Such decisions leave us - and our economy - vulnerable to even the slightest hiccup or disaster Ultimately, I've all but given up hope that advancements in science or environmentalism will be made here in the US. I have much more hope for my brothers in Europe to pull us through such a dangerous interum period that "America" seems to be so oblivious too. Chris

Nifty scientific fifty

George Redpath, Larchmont NY — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:36:46 GMT

"Climate Change" "Global Warming" are not the right terms -its "Global Heating" There are enough scientists who believe it is being caused by human activity that it must be given serious attention - because if they are right and we dont do anything to reverse course,we will have screwed the pooch. The problem with ignoring this and treating it as a debate is that there is no room for error if the nonbelivers get it wrong.

Nifty scientific fifty

Adam, Spring, TX — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 15:48:10 GMT

I am a conservationist, but not a radical environmentalist. I think it is foolish to waste or damage the natural environment without great need or just cause, and it should be avoided, but not necessarily at any cost, which is the environmentalist mantra as of late. Help "the environment" at ANY cost in every way possible every time is the current drive for the radical environmental movement. The question is, what environment are we talking about, how do we "help" it. The "environment" has become some sort of amorphous concept, almost personified as a being itself in some circles. I think people tend to think of humankind as somehow seperate from the world we live in, and yet we are still completely a part of it; it spawned us, and in my view it is going to have to tolerate us to an extent as we survive or thrive within it as it natuarally changes itself. Still, we should also not be willfully self destructive, and not tax it to the point where it can no longer bear the burden we put on it.

Population is the load we place. There are simply too many people creating too many people, really, but that can only change by our voluntary self control.
Global warming is of little concern. We are sure it is happening, but despite a lot of research, we still cannot honestly say we understand the mechanisms well, and that we can even come close to quantifying our contribution to it. It is inevitable that we will face climate change, as it is a natural occurrence. It is also virtually impossible for us to substantially affect the change, whether it was triggered in part by us or not.

We should be more concerned with dealing with the future effects of the inevitable changes than wasting resources in a futile effort to stall it, because it will occurr nonetheless. The best we can possibly hope for would be to slow it a few percent with extreme expenditures of resources at a substantial human cost. Do we know that is the best course of action. No, we don't because we don't fully understand even the warming, and that much less the potential consequences.

I would rather be driven in a clear direction with a clear purpose by concensus of well established and confirmed research than to leap to conclusions before all the data is in and understood to ease a paranoid fear on a temporary basis and take the risk that the medicine is worse than the disease.

Nifty scientific fifty

John Kalb , Clearwater, FL — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:26:33 GMT

Al Gore??? When did science and hysteria become equal.

Nifty scientific fifty

Wade Whitlock, Aberdeen, MD — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 17:15:11 GMT

Keep your head in the sand,guys! You don't perform unplanned, open-ended experiments with your (and mine!) one, and only, home.

The current misadministration is driven solely by profit oriented plutarchs. Nothing against an honest profit, but you don't pee in your own well!

The willingness to recognize a potential pitfall and take avoiding action is far preferable and wiser, to falling in and then worrying about getting out. The problem with tipping points in ecosystems is that they may be hard to recognize until the are passed and it may not be possible to "Untip" them.

Nifty scientific fifty

Alan, MA and Scotland — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:15:49 GMT

Adam, regarding your quote, "Global warming is of little concern. We are sure it is happening, but despite a lot of research, we still cannot honestly say we understand the mechanisms well, and that we can even come close to quantifying our contribution to it. It is inevitable that we will face climate change, as it is a natural occurrence. It is also virtually impossible for us to substantially affect the change, whether it was triggered in part by us or not."

This statement shows us that EDUCATION is a wonderful thing.

You claim that you are a "conservationist," yet you have clearly made up your mind that the vast majority of scientists are studying something of "little concern". I would like to see any scientific paper that claims, "we still cannot honestly say we understand the mechanisms well".

The understanding of what is happening has been with us for many years. The education of said understanding is under way, yet still so far away.

Breaking the "Programmed Mind" is what we are dealing with. Please at least try to be open-minded, so that when the time comes when the political powers (yes both parties on both sides of the Atlantic) and big industry decide to clean up their "smoke screen" approach to the problem, at least you will be ready for the truth.

Nifty scientific fifty

Chris, Chicago, Il — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:26:51 GMT

I think Mr. Weimer should sit down and watch An Inconvenient Truth. Saying that the data is so small and so subject to error is just plain false. We are on the edge of another mini ice age, and we need to address the situation now. The fact of the matter is is that the current administration is run by oil industry executives. It's not that there isn't enough proof on the table, it's that it means massive losses on their part from having to stop being involved in the oil business. Right now our cars aren't allowed in many countries because we fail to meet their emmissions standards. The Federal Govt is trying to sue California over their stte emmissions policies that would effectively put them where CHina's emmissions standards are today -11 YEARS from now. So. the largest industrializeing nation on the face of the planet, the one that we owe the greatest chunk of our debt to- will not accept our cars and everything that goes along with it because of our current administration's blazing shortsightedness. Last month Ford closed down the plant that made the Taurus, because they couldn't keep it open. Imagine if the government was fully on board the biodiesel bandwagon. That plant and the thousand jobs lost could hev been saved and revamped as a Corporation and Environment saver. Instead, it was scuttled, jobs lost, and a small town lies dying. it is time for us to open our eyes and become the innovators that our forefathers were, otherwie, we will just be statistics.

Nifty scientific fifty

Tony Rusi — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 16:22:31 GMT

Does Al Gore drive a plug-in electric car powered by windmills? I will take Democrats seriously when they get serious. Carter gave lipservice to US energy independence, as well as W, the time for lipservice is over. If we are all not part of the solution, we are part of the problem.