EVcast #84: Global Warming! Exploring the Issue

If you look at the s&l bailout the present sensationalism would be that if you don't approve of the bailout there will be a deep recession, the country would be in financial mess,  and many more people will lose their homes.  The bandwagon is to quickly approve of the bailout.

As far as global warming.  Many right-wing radio shows claim the arctic is actually warming and the sea-ice is back to normal.  The only reason to make these claims is to be right, possibly protect the fossil fuel industry, or possibly prevent paying for higher taxes somehow.

But the point is science is probably good enough to find whether global warming is occurring and the cause.  Science like hurricanes researchers can forecast what the future will hold as result of this warming.  There is no sensationalism or bandwagon involved.  If anything the bandwagon is not for global warming, but the bandwagon that is winning is pro-oil company because there has been virtually nothing done to slow global warming.  The bandwagon is to drill-drill-drill on our public land in a sealed envelop bid contract that only the large oil companies can bid on, paying the public nothing for their oil on their land.

Many people like global warming.  Some of the benefits. 1) Canada remains ice free since we are overdue for an ace age, 2) Longer summers, warmer falls, and milder winters.  Most people living in the north like that.  3) Increased farm yields. 4) possibly new fishing resource in the Arctic, 5) A new sea route to travel from California to New York via the Northwest passage.

So in summary some lead scientist must put out an unbiased report on.

1) The prediction on what will happen as result of this warming.

2) Actual recommended mitigation's.

As for over population.  The population of the US in 1900 was like 76 million, today it is like 300 million.  We get mass inflow from Mexico that is still gaining population even with their emigration.  IMHO you can't stop life with laws or self control, the population will continue to grow until there is war or famine to slow it down.  Since famine is unlikely it will be war.  It may be 200-300 maybe 1000 years, but when it does there will be a big war where 80-99% of the planet loses their life.  Then there will be a big cycle of this war every 1000 years or so when the number of people exceed the food supply .  Assuming we don't go into space.

quote comment add new comment

Sensationalism?  The problem with sensationalism for policy making, is that it appeals to the emotions rather than the intellect, and therefore decisions are then made by the emotions rather than thoughtful consideration.  And, unfortunately, we have seen a bit of a backlash from the sensationalism caused by predictions of Global Warming that supposedly are immanent- people get polarized and then it becomes difficult to discuss the entire issue in order to arrive at a consensus.

Not that there is not a place for emotion in our perceptions and in our decision making- but emotion cannot be the sole reason for any decision- and not even the driving force for most decisions.

I have mentioned this in a previous post, but I think the sensationalism of Global Warming overshadows other, more tangible concerns- pumping carbon into the atmosphere just is not healthy- and there are enough studies on this one issue, our future health, and the cost of, or savings we can gain, by either doing nothing or changing our carbon output, that should propel us to ditch our ICE vehicles and carbon-spewing power plants.  And this does not even take into account our national security, energy availablity, economic standing and terrorist funding.

quote comment add new comment

Well I just have to say I was pretty disappointed in this show.  There's really not much point in discussing a scientific issue if you're not going to discuss facts and scientific evidence.  Certainly there's a political aspect, but you can't determine what's appropriate politically unless you first understand the science.

I can't fault you guys, because it certainly isn't an easy task to seperate the facts from the "facts" in just a week's time.  I just wish you'd been successful in finding some experts (or at least reasonably well-informed people) to engage in the debate.

A quick comment on senstationalism - one person's sensationalism is another person's fact.  If there's a large meteor heading straight for the Earth, is it sensationalist to sound the alarm?  A person who doesn't believe the meteor is going to hit the Earth would call that sensationalist, but he'd be wrong.

There certainly are sensationalist claims about global warming out there, but it's also important to note that scientists are expressing a great deal of alarm about the subject.  Climate science experts are the ones saying we need to address global warming immediately.  Just because it sounds scary doesn't make it sensationalist.

quote comment add new comment