Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Bush admin about to reverse itself on global warming.

  1. Aug 27, 2004 #1

    amp

    User Avatar

    In a low key admission, Bush officials are allowing that they were wrong in their summary dismissal of man induced atmospheric warming.

    link:www.nytimes.com/2002/06/03/science/03CLIM.html
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 27, 2004 #2
    I can only hope all the extremist hippy morons will move towards the center as well so we can actually get some REAL dialogue going, rather than rhetoric BS.
     
  4. Aug 27, 2004 #3

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    By your post it would seem that it is the right, not the left that needs to get their act together...speaking of ridiculous rhetoric.
     
  5. Aug 27, 2004 #4
    I have no idea who you are talking about, but I am sure that they must know who they are and that this sincere statement will be a wonderful inducement to get some REAL dialog going.
     
  6. Aug 27, 2004 #5

    kat

    User Avatar

    I'd like to see more on this, or an actual comment on the .gov sites...I trust the NYT to report accurately about as far as I can throw a....
     
  7. Aug 27, 2004 #6

    kat

    User Avatar

  8. Aug 27, 2004 #7
    So, Bush was wrong, the "extremist hippy morons" were right, and they should both change positions?
     
  9. Aug 28, 2004 #8
    Yes Adam, they should both change positions. I think Phat was worried that the hippymorons are too addicted to their hate to move forward.
     
  10. Aug 28, 2004 #9
    So being right equals being addicted to hate now?
     
  11. Aug 28, 2004 #10
    My point exactly. There's no dialogue on either side, and hasn't been for a long time. Bush moving to the center is worthless so long as the other side is still running around using the green movement as a front for their political idealogies (go to an 'environmental' protest, and see how many anti-capitalism, anti-globalization, etc. signs there are. It's got little, to nothing, to do with the environment)

    And I used 'hippie morons' to push some buttons to bring some out of the wood work. And it worked :)
     
  12. Aug 28, 2004 #11
    I fail to see how that works.
    I am not the right. I am not the left. I stated AS WELL in my post. I blame both sides for the break down in communication, and full out garbage rhetoric based on NO SCIENCE.
     
  13. Aug 28, 2004 #12
    Have you ever been to an 'environmental' rally? If so, has anyone there EVER handed you an outline for a realistic plan to combat pollution and global warming, while maintaining some level of lifestyle?

    I can tell you, I have gone. And what I got was a bunch of dancing morons who couldn't give me ANY facts. These are the people that most see yelling about global warming (because they are the extremist, and it's funny to see them on TV). In response, the dialogue for actual change is lost due to these people being looked as a joke. THEY HAVE LOST CREDIBILITY.

    I wish I could find the name of the guy again. There was a gentleman that I watched an interview with who has gone down the environmental models and proposed different options at different level of society based on a cost-benefit analysis. What? Actually see what should be the priority and what we should adjust our lives for??? NEVER! That would be just too much! B

    But really, that is EXACTLY the kind of things the 'hippie morons' need to shift to. Just as the present admin needs to fall in that line.
     
  14. Aug 28, 2004 #13
    Well, then, you are hardly in a position to pass judgement on the effects of my statement.
     
  15. Aug 28, 2004 #14
    Are you saying that the people at environmental rallies don't call for higher fuel efficiency in cars, gas/electric hybrids, using wind/solar/tidal/geo-thermal energy instead of gasoline, tightening restrictions on factory emissions etc.?
     
  16. Aug 28, 2004 #15

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Calling for higher fuel efficiency, etc. etc. does not make up intelligent debate and a move towards finding actual solutions. The majority of the environmental lobby only hurt their efforts by not being practical. You have to find common ground, or else you get nowhere.

    I despise what this administration is doing about the environment - though I see the reason for such moves. But surely, the opposition is not doing a great job itself. Idle demands get you nowhere. Let's see a plan that might work and then maybe the Right will think about it...
     
  17. Aug 29, 2004 #16
    But...

    I wasn't talking about that...

    Phatmonkey said no one at environmental rallies ever had a realistic plan for how to reduce pollution/fight global warming that allowed people to live a realistic life, and I didn't believe that no one at an environmental rally would call for the things I mentioned, which would reduce pollution/fight global warming, but also wouldn't greatly interfere with everyday life...
     
  18. Aug 29, 2004 #17
    I didn't, did I. I notice that you made no attempt to explain either, but just to make an irrelevant statement about nothing.

    You claim that your reason for using dumb-sounding words is to incite people, but it sounds like you are the extremist, and perhaps that you can not think of any words that might promote conversation. You wonder why people are so apart. I recommend that you look at the "moronic" words that you use to explain the situation.
     
  19. Aug 29, 2004 #18
    I've been a uni student for a couple of years now. Rallies of various sorts are always getting in my way. On the good side, many of them give out free food and drinks. Often in aluminium cans.

    I simply ignore them. I go to sources the entire world finds quite credible. If I wish to find out about alternative energy sources and such, for example, I see my electronics professor. He's a senior member of the IEEE, roams around the world solving nuclear reactor problems, sits on various alternative energy development boards for the IEEE and other groups, et cetera. The dude is quite clever about his field. This is the sort of resource I have access to here. Lucky me.
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2004
  20. Aug 29, 2004 #19
    I already did in the previous posts before replying to you. They are there. You can continue to derail this thread, or you can get onto the other posts. When will you start adding to this thread?

    My reasoning for calling a spade a spade, was just that. I didn't use the term moron because I was calling a name. I was calling morons, morons.
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2004
  21. Aug 29, 2004 #20
    That's great. But here in the USA, do you know where NON-environmental people get their information about global warming and pollution??
    GREENPEACE. They are in the news more often than the EPA. When the EPA released a report on different recommended amounts of fish (this concerning mercury poisoning), there was NOTHING on television about it. However, I can't go a week many times without hearing about how we are going to have no oil, trees, and/or water within 50 years. Then I look online, and some private institute is/or has debunked much of the doomsday image. However, it's no fun to report that.

    Greenpeace, IMO, is the environmental equivalent of PETA. Atlease Greenpeace was started with a real goal and without propaganda. But the reality is it is one of, if not the, most known environmental groups and it is HARDLY the image I think that the environmentalist movement will be able to gain traction with.

    Everyone needs to come to the middle, and I know you agree with this, as you have said. I'm simply reiterating my point.
     
  22. Aug 29, 2004 #21
    wow! And these people handed you a cost/benefit analysis on these ideas? or a website on where to view one?
    Have you ever asked how they planned to use to develop the hydrogen for fuel cells? or what evidence told them that oil/water/trees (take your pick) wouldn't be around for our children?? I did, and I was chastised, even when trying to ask in the most unassuming way possible.

    Were you able to understand how they will implement these ideas over the beat of the drum circle, while people shouted things at a burnding effigy of their favorite globalization 'evil doer' ( ;) ) for that week???



    Also, I found a guy's name that I couldn't remember. Simply incredible, and from my readings, quite the enemy of the modern day environmental movement here in the states (probably elsewhere since he is European, but I haven't read that) - Bjorn Lomborg. So who here knows who he is, and who here can let me know why they think he is wrong? If nothing else, he is atleast looking at the science behind environmentalism, and I think that it is great. It's great Bush is looking at the same thing.
     
  23. Aug 29, 2004 #22
    I've never been to an environmental rally, I just couldn't believe that no one at an environmental rally would support those things. Notice I didn't say anything about hydrogen. From what I've read, gasoline has a very good ratio of energy needed to extract/refine it, and Hydrogen's makes it pretty much useless. For every 1 unit of gasoline used to extract/refine/make gasoline, you can get 100 units of gasoline. For every 1 unit of hydrogen use to extract/refine/make hydrogen in a usable form, you get 1/2 unit of hydrogen. I believe wind-power gives off 50 untis of energy for every 1 unit of energy used to make the energy useful, while it's not as good as gasoline, it's pretty decent.

    Some of the things I listed seem to be pretty simple though, not like a huge risk. I mean, we had stricter environmental laws under Clinton, and it's not like corporations fell to the ground under his presidency. And the same with gas/electric cars, it's not like cars that get 40+mpg are unthinkable and would cause anything negative to happen, besides perhaps some loss of revenue for oil companies since people would re-fuel less often. Also, wind power has been utilized alot in California and has proven very promising and useful, and Germany also uses alot of it too. I'm sure any environmental website could give you the amount of power x amount of land with windmills on it could produce, I remember from an old New York Times article that if the Long Island sound was filled with windmills, that 30,000 homes could be powered indefinately, but I could be remembering the stat wrong...

    For real, no one at an environmental rally talked about anything concerning wind/solar power and gas/elelctric hybrid cars or solar powered cars? That seems ridiculous, I gotta go organize one of these things and explain all the realistic, plausible crap there is out there to people like you...

    Some tangible negative things that will inevitably happen in the future, which I can cite sources for at the moment, all involve global warming and are from an EPA report to congress.

    “Human activities have altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases – primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The heat-trapping property of these gases is undisputed. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased nearly 30%, methane concentrations have more than doubled, and nitrous oxide concentrations have risen by about 15%. These increases have enhanced the heat-trapping capability of the earth's atmosphere.

    Globally, sea level has risen 4-8 inches over the past century. Worldwide precipitation over land has increased by about one percent. The frequency of extreme rainfall events has increased throughout much of the United States.

    Scientists expect that the average global surface temperature could rise 1-4.5°F (0.6-2.5°C) in the next fifty years, and 2.2-10°F (1.4-5.8°C) in the next century, with significant regional variation. Evaporation will increase as the climate warms, which will increase average global precipitation. Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions, and intense rainstorms are likely to become more frequent. Sea level is likely to rise two feet along most of the U.S. coast.”

    Though I can't find anything specifically saying how quickly oil and trees are being used up, obviously, you can see, oil and trees are finite resources, we're obviously using them very quickly, and the rate of new oil field being found is steadily decreasing, and we already know where all the trees in the world are. Off the top of my head, I believe we (humans) have destroyed something like 25% of the rainforest to date, and you certainly wouldn't argue that the amount of trees and oil in the world is GROWING, would you?
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2004
  24. Aug 29, 2004 #23

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Okay.


    That's just baloney...and I don't believe you are buying that ! It's simply about protecting his base, and (understandably) trying to rekindle employment, at any cost. Bush doesn't really give 2 hoots for the tree-huggers (or the trees); they'll never vote for him, anyway ! He's just applying Re-election 101 tricks.
     
  25. Aug 29, 2004 #24

    I'm glad that it is on record that he his admin admits there is a possibilty.
    The article states there isn't a plan for changing tactics. That is a mistake I think.
    However, the report allows them to be held accountable for their actions. It's a step in the right direction. Just like I would think it was a step in the right direction if Greenpeace just said "hey, we do need to look at a cost/benefit analysis of things we are proposing". Even if they didn't do it, atleast they can be put on the fire for it.
    As for reelection - no one is talking about it, and even says they quietly did this. How is that for reelection?

    wasteofo2, I'll respond tomorrow. You took the time for a lengthy post and I don't want to rush a response.
     
  26. Aug 30, 2004 #25

    amp

    User Avatar

    I can't say how factual it is but a movie Steven Segal stared in 'On Deadly Ground' came out a few years ago and addressed the suppression of energy effiency in cars, power plants, ect. It also comdemed the polluters, oil companies and revealed the greed and anti-enviornment attitude of these polluters.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook