Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Another poll for my blog, this time it is about "Global Warming."

You may vote in this poll once per day.

Global Warming has been in the headlines A LOT recently.

The "Global Warming" debate has become, for some reason I just cannot understand, 100% political in America.

Democrats often think that Global Warming is a real problem and that is is being made worse by mankind. Republicans often think that Global Warming is not a big problem.

A lot of respected scientists are on both sides of this issue...

I do not have a strong opinion on this issue. I have read several reports from those on both sides if this issue; in my humble opinion both sides bring up some good points. If I had to guess, I would say that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

I do NOT know enough about the topic to have a strong opinion; yet, MANY people who have read far less on the subject then I cling to one view or the other view.

What do you think about Global Warming?

Mike Sylvester

7 comments:

LessGov WebMaster said...

This is simple. Real or not real if the government attempts to regulate with more emission laws or pressure to build more efficient vehicles then the problem will become worse. There is a lot of science going either direction on this issue. The real problem is in America people are more willing to accept man is responsible than the sun or anything else. The truth is people tend to look for bad things to come. As I have said in my own blog people have believed we are living in the end days for hundreds of years now. Let the people govern themselves. Auto makers are working to produce better engines without the governments regulations. Stop looking for the government to tell you what to do.

Jeff Pruitt said...

I'm so sick of this "There is science on both sides of the issue" crap.

No there isn't.

There isn't a single paper (at least as of about a year ago) in a refereed journal that doesn't come to the conclusion that human activity is leading to global warming.

We can argue the consequences or how fast we're approaching those consequences but anyone arguing that "it doesn't exist" is simply ignorant.

We have millions of years of ambient CO2 data taken from ice cores that shows the earth's natural fluctuations. The 1970s levels were significantly higher than those. And current levels are significantly higher than the 1970s.

I'm not sure why I even bother arguing this anymore. Some people just want to believe whatever the hell they want...

LP Mike Sylvester said...

Jeff Pruitt:

Wow. You and I agree so often that I tend do be somewhat surprised when we disagree...

I think there is science on both sides; however, I may have to spend some time reading up on it after tax season...

Mike Sylvester

Tim Zank said...

Science is not infallible, and to plunge headlong into re-structuring our entire way of life by legislating regulations that would cause irreparable economic harm to the world is ludicrous.

Calm me pragmatic, but if this "sphere" we call home has been around for 4 million years, odds are pretty good we've got a little time to deal with this rationally.

I have NEVER denied global warming is happening. My position is that it is happening very slowly and should be addressed on the basis of priority, not a reason to serve 4 years in the White House or some other elected office.

The radical view of this, when put in laymens terms, is that doomsday is just around the corner. I find that just a tad overblown.

As for ambient co2 "the levels are significantly higher", please remember "significant" is a very subjective word. All I would ask is that the proponents of global warming be more honest and drop the issue from the political re-election realm.......

Jeff Pruitt said...

The term "significant" is a matter of semantics. However, if you want to see what "significant" looks like in this case you can check out this chart.

For millions of years the CO2 concentration had never gotten above 300ppm - now the level is 383ppm and steadily rising.

Here's another chart that points out why (although I'm sure it's obvious to everyone) this is happening...

Tim Zank said...

Jeff, I know how to make something look significant on a chart, the thinner the display the more alarming the upward trend on the right side will appear. That's not exactly rocket science, although Al Gore would have you believe otherwise.
The use of alarmist graphs and scary vid-clips of ice caps melting is what I object to. I have no problem with an honest assesment or projection. As I've said before, I don't deny global warming exists, I can read a thermometer and my thermometer tells me this week the earth probably ain't gonna burn up.

My problem lies with making this appear as though next Monday the world will end, so therefore vote for me on Friday and then it won't happen.
It's a really dishonest way to garner support for your party.

Jeff Pruitt said...

Don't look at the chart then and only read the numbers. Never above 300 in MILLIONS OF YEARS and now approaching 400. That's significant and any attempt by you to spin it otherwise won't change that.

Your characterization at the end is unfair. It's more likely the choice is "Vote for us because we'll do SOMETHING/ANYTHING".

"Vote for the other side and they will continue to ignore the problem while simultaneously using political power to interfere w/ scientific research/results"