George Will on global warming

Ragu --

That is, of course, patently ridiculous.

EVERYTHING comes down to market economics? Please.

If we're right about the threat of global warming, and we do nothing, human existence ends.

Which makes how much money it would cost to change largely irrelevant.

 

You'll never get near unanimity on anything. But it was a prevalent theory of the day.

Again, the area where I'm now sitting once was covered by a glacier. Why did it disappear?

I'm sure the earth is going through a warming cycle. Where we differ is the cause of it, and the agenda of those who say man is largely responsible, the U.S. in particular.

If things like Kyoto are so wonderful, why did the Senate vote 95-0 against it?

 

As a teen-ager and college student I was admittedly a little distracted in the '70s with the sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll thing, but you'd think I'd have some memory of this global-cooling concept. But I don't.

 

Lyman --

We normally get along, so don't take any of this the wrong way.

1. You have all-but unanimity now that human activity is contributing to global warming. And since I've never heard of global cooling until the past few months, I'm going to assume it was nowhere near as big a deal as today's global warming deniers would like us to believe. I'll certainly take a look at any evidence to the contrary.

2. Of course, there were ice ages. That's not what we're talking about.

3. The US has to accept a huge chunk of the blame. We have a lot of cars, and we use them a lot, and have for a long time. As i said earlier, of course other countries have responsibilities. That doesn't change our responsibility.

4. I'm not talking about Kyoto in particular. But our response after not signing Kyoto should have been to develop a better treaty, rather than ignoring the problem.

 

The "global cooling" theory wasn't even close to being a "rage" in the 1970's. There were a small group of scientists who were floating around theories concerning aerosol and then, if I remember correctlly, Newsweek and Time (which people actually read back then) had some semi-hysterical articles about it. It died off as quickly as it started.

Besides, scientific enquiry into climate change is far more sophisticated than it was 30 years ago.

 

I was around in the 1970's, and the rhetorical uise of "global cooling" as a talking point in 2007 is, as usual, bullshit.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

 

Ragu --

We've been here before, and I enjoy your posts. So lets agree to disagree that market economics control everything and leave it at that.

Besides, if you keep posting stuff like that, JDV will call you a socialist.

 

No offense taken at all, Zeke. Vice versa, I hope.

I'm not sure near-unanimity exists on the causes of global warming. I'm also not sure you can dismiss my point about glaciers by just saying "of course, there were ice ages." Heating and cooling cycles have been going on since the beginning of time. I'd venture to say the Ice Age was a lot more drastic in terms of climate change than anything going on now. Did man cause that?

A lot of global-warming supporters use this as a cudgel to beat the U.S. about the head. It's a way to tie one hand behind our economy's back. A better treaty than Kyoto would be one that also comes down hard on China and India for belching all sorts of crap into the air. Think we'll be seeing anything like that anytime soon?

I was in Hong Kong recently, and the amount of pollution in the air was sickening. I've never seen anything in the States that compares. Virtually all of it originated in mainland China. But that's OK, for some people, I guess.

And saying that if we put restrictions on ourselves, they'll do it, too, is the height of naievete.

 

Scientists hardly are infallible.