Those are a couple of excellent links there, Al. I imagine I'll get much use out of the PRI in the future.

Dave

Well...

Those who fully believe in "Global Climate Change" will counter that such unexpected cold-snaps merely PROVE their point about Global Warming.

See, it goes something like this:

Q - How's the weather?

A - Fine. Normal.

Q - Well, it won't be for long!

---

Q - How's the weather?

A - Hotter than usual.

Q - See! PROOF that Global Warming is happening!

---

Q - How's the weather?

A - Colder than usual.

Q - See! PROOF that we are currently experiencing GLOBAL CLIKMATE CHANGE!

---

It's no mystery why this crowd has changed its tune so many times. First it was, ANOTHER ICE AGE! Then it was, THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT! Then it was, GLOBAL WARMING! Now it's the ambiguous GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE!

Now, no matter what your local weather is , these fun folks can use this is PROOF that their theory is correct! Any abnormality in weather patterns is EVIDENCE of a massive shift in global weather patterns. And if the weather where you live is pretty normal? They will simply suggest that IT WON't BE MUCH LONGER!

So, regardless of whether the weather is unusually cool, warm or neither, these people will stick to their guns. It's almost a religion for them. Blief is vastly more important than potentially contradictory evidence...

Yes, and the Earth is flat and only liberals think cigarettes cause lung cancer. As a general rule, I only trust scientists who work for the tobacco companies and the coal industry. I mean, why trust the "vast majority" of scientists? If the vast majority of scientists jumped off a cliff, would you? Hell no! Everyone knows that scientists are just a bunch of godless commies, anyway, except the ones who work for Exxon, of course. They believe in a capitalist god who drives the biggest SUV in the universe.

>>Any abnormality in weather patterns is EVIDENCE of a massive shift in global weather patterns. <<

When has weather ever been normal, consistent or predictable?

>>I mean, why trust the "vast majority" of scientists?<<

While the majority of scientists agree that the climate changes over time - and those who find it advantageous use this to claim that the 'vast majority of scientists' support global warming theory. The fact is that most scientists are not willing to commit to the idea that human actions are in any way responsible for what may be going on in the climate right now.

Dave

Well, I'm open-minded enough to agree that we cannot simply pump millions of tons of previously locked-away carbon-based fuels into the air without there being some sort of consequence...but the anti-growth environmentalist lobby has been promoting various contradictory doomsday scenarios for so long that I no longer really believe what they say.

So, here's the deal:

Pollution? Bad.

Destroying Western civilization's industry? Bad.

Smog? Bad.

Letting elderly people in the South expire, because air conditioners use up a lot of energy, and we simply cannot have that? Bad.

Sooo...how about we all agree that we need a serious energy policy in this country. One that doesn't attempt to strangle demand, while at the same time offering a more eco-friendly supply.

Deal? Deal...

Right, it's snowing in April. That's a much stronger and compelling argument against global warming than the melting of the polar ice caps, the disappearance of almost all the snow from kilamanjaro; the glaciers in the alps shrinking; whales and dolphins moving northwards into the coastal waters off the British Isles - you can make a snowball in early April.

...proof of his far-sightedness
is that none of his predictions have come true yet...

While the majority of scientists agree that the climate changes over time - and those who find it advantageous use this to claim that the 'vast majority of scientists' support global warming theory. The fact is that most scientists are not willing to commit to the idea that human actions are in any way responsible for what may be going on in the climate right now.

Nice try, Dave. You use the same tactics that the oil & coal industry "scientists" use: deny, confuse, obfuscate.

"Most scientists believe recent global warming has been generated by human influence on a naturally-occurring phenomenon called the greenhouse effect." Link

It's amazing to me that right-wingers can use loaded terms like "the anti-growth environmentalist lobby" with a straight face given the Orwellian anti-fact world the Bushies live in. Politicizing science is like breathing to them. There's plenty of opinion on this right
here, but if you don't trust the Dems' website, just read this quote from Nixon's director of the National Bureau of Standards, Lewis Branscomb: "I'm not aware that [Nixon] ever hand-picked ideologues to serve on advisory committees, or dismissed from advisory committees very well-qualified people if he didn't like their views.... What's going on now is in many ways more insidious. It happens behind the curtain. I don't think we've had this kind of cynicism with respect to objective scientific advice since I've been watching government, which is quite a long time."

If you believe that the truth is sacred, you must believe that what this Bush crowd does is evil, plain and simple.

Re: "If you believe that the truth is sacred, you must believe that what this Bush crowd does is evil, plain and simple."

Jon - Theories (and their related truths) that we deal with in everyday life (and science) are profane and always open to refutation and obfuscation. Witness the effectiveness of advertising and propaganda. Words like 'evil' and 'sacred' might not be appropriate to a political discussion.

But wait! Bush is the Anti-Christ! (At least that's what I heard.)

A interesting comparison can be made between the treatment of Science under the Bush crew and the way it was treated in Stalin's Soviet Union where scientific truth was politically controlled by deputy for science Lysenko. The Lysenko period proved to be an embarrassment for that country and that's where we're going with Bush.

Mark

Pete B:"Nice try, Dave. You use the same tactics that the oil & coal industry "scientists" use: deny, confuse, obfuscate."

Actually, I prefer to deal in facts and truth.

Pete quoting the BBC: "Most scientists believe recent global warming has been generated by human influence on a naturally-occurring phenomenon called the greenhouse effect."

And you do what most leftists do, make claims without any documentary support. Which also appears to be a problem for BBC journalists. Just saying 'most scientists' in an article doesn't make it true. Let's see a source for that conclusion.

For your reference there's a great article by Richard Lindzen on how the global warming hype got promulgated by environmentalists and basically sold to the public and then picked up by scientists from there on the Cato Institute website.

And there's a very useful article on this subject from the National Center for Policy Analysis which references actuall polling data of scientists which shows that only 17% of meteorologists believe in the role of humanity in global warming - this was a Gallup poll, not some made up partisan poll of selected subjects. It also cites a survey by Greenpeace - of all people - which shows that only 13% of scientists believe global warming will lead to radical climate change.

So, the truth is that scientists DO NOT overwhelmingly believe that humans are causing global warming. It's just not true. It's a politically driven bit of propaganda pushed by groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists and by radicals who want to use environmentalism to force social and economic change on the US and other capitalist countries.

Dave

And you do what most leftists do, make claims without any documentary support.

Dave, read my comment. There's a quote and then there's a link to the source of the quote. Since you "prefer to deal in facts and truth," you must admit that this is the DEFINITION of documentary support. If you want to ask the BBC for their source, go ahead. I certainly trust them more than I do either you or the CATO Institute.

But, you do what "most [right]-wingers do." You simply dismiss any possible source the other side might offer a priori. So what's the point of argument?

Only idiot fools who have no understanding of science scoff and play happy word games at the implications of global warming. Here is the latest news:

The Bush administration's program to study climate change lacks a major component required by law, according to GAO investigators. The program fails to include periodic assessments of how rising temperatures may affect people and the environment.
Happy Happy, Make a joke!

Dave: the Greenpeace survey you referred to is from 1992. Let's get with the 21st century! The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded in 2001 after their meta-analysis that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." Oh, but wait - that's from the UN. Anything they do is stoopid.

Mark, re: "Theories (and their related truths) that we deal with in everyday life (and science) are profane and always open to refutation and obfuscation... Words like 'evil' and 'sacred' might not be appropriate to a political discussion."

Agreed. That's why it gets so frustrating trying to engage in dialogue with right-wingers (many, not all - there are exceptions). The right uses apocalyptic terminology (evil empires, axes of evil etc.) and goad us into doing the same. Then, when we're called on it, we have to admit that we were goaded, and end up frustrated.

Good God. You sound just like that guy on BC who wrote a couple of weeks ago about an April snowstorm in Denver as being further evidence that there is no global warming.
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/04/12/072730.php

You guys probably also really believe that Fox News is "fair & balanced"?

If you really want to know what the deal is on our future here on Earth, see this article in the latest issue of The New Yorker @
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050425fa_fact3
Try and stay cool!

Jon,

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Roger,

Anyone who argues we don't contribute to enviromental deterioration has personal issues keeping them from seeing the reality. We'd need to examine thier personal issues before discussing enviromental issues.

Pete: "Dave, read my comment. There's a quote and then there's a link to the source of the quote. Since you "prefer to deal in facts and truth," you must admit that this is the DEFINITION of documentary support. If you want to ask the BBC for their source, go ahead. I certainly trust them more than I do either you or the CATO Institute."

As I pointed out in my response the BBC article doesn't even have a basic attribution for their claim, and the claim is not, in fact, true. The truth is that the BBCs has no source - it's just a statement of presumed general knowledge whicn in this case happens to be incorrect. You passing on their error doesn't make you correct either.

Jon:"the Greenpeace survey you referred to is from 1992. Let's get with the 21st century! The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded in 2001 after their meta-analysis that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." Oh, but wait - that's from the UN. Anything they do is stoopid."

You said it, not me, but I'm not arguing. However, there is no evidence to support this claim at all. See my earlier article on this subject. The actual pattern of warming has been consistent for several hundred years and has not, in fact, accelerated in the last century or even the last 50 years. There's no reason to suspect human a human role. And might I also point out that although the Greenpeace survey is from 1992, the Gallup poll of scientists cited in the NCPA article which has only 17% of scientists supporting a human agency theory for global warming, is from 2002 - which is pretty current as these things go.

Dave

re: "Right, it's snowing in April. That's a much stronger and compelling argument against global warming " etc

Seems to me that even when they are all wandering around with water up to their ankles, lobbyists in DC and think tankers in San Francisco will still be arguing over whether or not the phenomenon is for real, and, if so, who's to blame.

Thanks, Roger, for the link to the Kolbert article.

re: "The right uses apocalyptic terminology (evil empires, axes of evil etc.) and goad us into doing the same. Then, when we're called on it, we have to admit that we were goaded, and end up frustrated."

'Death tax', 'pro life'...frustrating indeed. Take pleasure in small absurdities as when some dim bulb in the department of stupid names comes up with the Freudian slip 'Enduring Freedom' without considering the various uses of 'enduring'...and the bigwigs go with it! Sadly, comedians at the time were far too patriotic to jump on it.

Mark

It turns out most of the groups arguing against global warming (or its human causation) are funded by ExxonMobil. Surprise! The insurance industry, on the other hand, isn't being fooled, because global warming threatens the viability of their whole industry.

A picture's worth a thousand words. Well, this picture has words on it, too. It shows a multiplicy of effects of global warming. But I'm beginning to think that we're arguing this whole issue backwards. Instead of wasting time "debating" the causes of the present warming, maybe we should move beyond that and determine what we should be doing about it. Oh, wait - most of the world, outside the influence of the Bush fantasy bubble, already is.

>>It turns out most of the groups arguing against global warming (or its human causation) are funded by ExxonMobil. <<

Are you REALLY this gullible? Your link is to Mother Jones. Come on. You think they don't have an agenda? Please note that my earlier information on scientists not supporting the human causation theory came not from an Exxon/Mobil front, but from a gallup poll of climate scientists - not ones working for Exxon, but in fact the entire membership of the American Meteorological Society and American Geophysical Society. As usual, the lies just don't hold up.

>>Surprise! The insurance industry, on the other hand, isn't being fooled, because global warming threatens the viability of their whole industry.
<<

Another nice whopper there. The insurance industry sees this as an opportunity to raise rates. That's it. Follow the money. When you turn to the rapacious weasels of the insurance industry for support you know your argument is bankrupt.

>>Instead of wasting time "debating" the causes of the present warming, maybe we should move beyond that and determine what we should be doing about it. Oh, wait - most of the world, outside the influence of the Bush fantasy bubble, already is.<<

And the ship of logic sails by you again. If humans didn't cause global warming, how exactly are we supposed to stop it? And how do we know something radical enough to change a huge natural force wouldn't do incalculable environmental damge? And don't dare say a word about Kyoto, it totally ignores the countries which are going to be the major polluters of the coming centuries and instead focuses on social engineering and gratuitous wealth redistribution. It's not an environmental program it's a socialist manifesto.

Dave

see also exxon secrets:
a statement of the company's relationship with the Pacific Research Institute. ExxonMobil didn't invest millions here, but ...

Mark

It seems so illogical to even have this argument if you have any science background. Can someone set up a "Bush declares earth flat" article to bait some of these arguments away

Tom, 83% of the members of the American Meteorlological Association don't believe in human causation in global warming. Are you saying that meteorologists don't have a science background?

No one is debating global warming here - but the scientific evidence supports it being a natural process, not something caused by man. End of story.

Dave

re:"If humans didn't cause global warming, how exactly are we supposed to stop it?"

Stop it? Who said anything about stopping it? Man made or not, what makes anybody think it can be stopped? The melt is going on right now. What are we going to do about it? That's the question. Is it time to start thinking of shorefront properties as short rather than long-term investments? How about cities on stilts?

Mark

Nah, a couple hundred feet of elevation, 40 acres, southern exposure, a deep well, a big garden, several guns, cows, chickens, a wood furnace.

You'll be fine

Didn't know you'd been by my place, Bennett.

Dave

>>see also exxon secrets:
a statement of the company's relationship with the Pacific Research Institute. ExxonMobil didn't invest millions here, but ...<<

There's an understatement for you. Out of $4.144 million in revenues, PRI got less than $50K from Exxon/Mobil (about 1% of their total) and a total of only 12% of their revenue came from corporate donations of all kinds. Yeah, Exxon sure bought them out. Exxon gives more money to the Boy Scouts than they gave to PRI. Even more ironically, they donated $1.4 million last year to environmentalist and conservation groups, few of them even remotely political and some of them pretty left wing. Exxon gave a total of $103 million to charity last year. To suggest that the tiny bit they gave to PRI somehow taints PRI is meaningless. They gave that much money to just about every major university and environmental think tank or foundation on earth. Are they ALL tainted?

PRI seems like a pretty worthwhile group. It's broadly funded, focuses on a lot of good subjects, and seems to have pretty laudable goals. There's no indication that it's sold out to any special interest - except that it's kind of free market and libertarian in leanings. And that's ok with me.

Dave

The whole world agrees on this. Bush has proven he chooses ecomonics over the environment by not signing the Kyoto treaty. I feel like the time I had to prove there were fifty states to a place i worked. Everyone there thought it was 52. This is not even debatable.

hilarious Al, very well done - April is the cruelest month and the demon Bush has only made it crueler. You had ice, we had a foot of snow

>>Your link is to Mother Jones<<

And you did exactly as I thought. I purposely linked to some Mother Jones articles to see if you would actually look at the articles, or simply see what the source was and reject it out of hand. And you did just what I knew you would do! So you won't see all the research laid out there, because of where it's published. I, however, am perfectly willing to look seriously at any research you can point to to back up your position. But in your own article on the subject, you didn't cite any such research at all - all you did was include one graph. And what do you cite here, above? An eight-year-old poll via the National Center for Policy Analysis, a supposedly "nonpartisan" organization whose "goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector." So who, exactly, has an agenda here?

I find it exceedingly disturbing how anti-environmentalists can cite only polls, no actual science, in defending their positions. It's because there is no actual science behind their positions.

everyone has an agenda but me and my monkey

Jon, the question was whether the majority of scientists agree that humans cause global warming. Therefore a poll of scientists IS the appropriate evidence, not the science they derive their opinions from. In addition, that poll may be cited on the NCPA website, but it's from the Gallup organization, one of the oldest and most respected independent, non-partisan polling organizations in the world. Are you going to tell me Gallup has an agenda now? And the Gallup poll is NOT eight years old as you claim, it's only 3 years old.

As for your irrelevant attack on the NCPA, are you saying that you object to their 'agenda' of encouraging private solutions to problems so that government regulation won't be necessary? You're saying that things like voluntary reduction of pollution are a bad thing?

And Mother Jones? How exactly did you trap me there? I read the article. It was substance free and typical of their polemic-laden propaganda. Are you seriously trying to tell me that Mother Jones is a scientific journal?

Dave

re:"To suggest that the tiny bit they gave to PRI somehow taints PRI is meaningless."

From what I have gleaned from their site, PRI is a free-market lobbyist think tank group whose mantra concerning global warming is that one should make statements about warming based on 'sound science' rather than on casual observations of rising temperatures and melting glaciers (or snowstorms in April). Their interpretations lead them to produce studies that indicate general environmental improvement. They lobbied against Kyoto.

As far as 'taint' caused by ExxonMobil money goes, PRI was a free-market group from the get go as described in the history section on their site.

I referred to PRI as a single instance of what was discussed in the Mother Jones article cited and acknowledged that the amount of money was not great. I do not hold that one should dismiss their work out of hand.

re:"Jon, the question was whether the majority of scientists agree that humans cause global warming"

How about let's discuss global warming, generally. Can we agree that the phenemenon is real? Some folks (eg PRI) won't go that far.

Mark

I agree it's real and think the solution is the aggressive development of alternative energy sources

>>Are you seriously trying to tell me that Mother Jones is a scientific journal?<<

No, of course not. Neither is Blogcritics, neither are you, and neither am I. That's a big part of the problem here: we all, to some extent, have to trust our sources. (I'd still like to see you back up your claims with scientific evidence, but you can't, so we'll move on). As an atheist who grew up in a house full of scientists, I tend to trust the overwhelming body of scientific evidence as exemplified by the IPCC report, over journalists or polls. BTW the poll you referred to is cited on a page with a 1997 date, that's why I said "eight-year-old" - I'm curious about when that poll was actually conducted, can anyone enlighten on this?

Anyway, you can spend all day disparaging my sources and I can spend all day disparaging yours. For example, the allegedly nonpartisan NCPA's Global Warming "Science" page lists ONLY articles that challenge the broad scientific consensus that human activities contribute to global warming. It's a perfect example of an organization trying to pretend to exhibit a "cooler head" in order to mask a very one-sided agenda.

But the fact is, the evidence of global climate change, as you admit in your own article, is clear. As Mark says, "The melt is going on right now. What are we going to do about it?" How could reducing CO2 emissions possibly NOT make sense?

re:"How could reducing CO2 emissions possibly NOT make sense?"

My question is, would it make any difference to the warming trend?

Mark

My opinion: Stop trying to reduce CO2 emissions. The Capitalists cannot move on this until the oil is gone. If they start building nuclear reactors, I'd bet the farm that it will be in addition to fossil fuel, not instead of. Focus money and publicity on groups modeling scenarios based on the assumptions of continuing warming. Make more movies about the coming changes like "Day after Tomorrow" to desensitize folks. Encourage people to get: "a couple hundred feet of elevation, 40 acres, southern exposure, a deep well, a big garden, several guns, cows, chickens, a wood furnace." (thanks for the line Bennett) or (god forbid) start some social planning to minimize human loss.

Mark

MDE, I haven't run into anyone but the most trenchant ideologues who think the earth hasn't warmed up a bit in the last 500 or so years. The science also supports that. The warming is somewhere around 1.6 degrees over that time.

The real argument is whether this is just the natural cycle which it appears to be, or whether humans had any impact on the trend.

Jon: "(I'd still like to see you back up your claims with scientific evidence, but you can't, so we'll move on)"

Back up WHAT claims? I haven't made any scientific claims on this thread. The only claim I made was that most scientists do NOT in fact support human causality in global warming and I provided the evidence for that.

Jon: " lists ONLY articles that challenge the broad scientific consensus that human activities contribute to global warming"

There you go again. There is NOT a broad scientific consensus on this. You seem to be deliberately missing the point. The overwhelming majority if climate scientists believe there IS global warming, but also believe it is NOT caused by humans. This isn't a theory, it's a fact. Your consensus does not exist. In that context, the NCPA is not pushing a radical agenda, they're presenting the facts as supported by 83% of climate scientists.

Jon: "But the fact is, the evidence of global climate change, as you admit in your own article, is clear. As Mark says, "The melt is going on right now. What are we going to do about it?" How could reducing CO2 emissions possibly NOT make sense?"

Because it's pointless? Our CO2 emissions are so minute compared to natural sources that they aren't enough to cause global warming and conversely cutting them down won't make any difference in the process of global warming either. Even if it could make a difference, it's almost certainly too late. Not to mention that nations like the US and Europe have already reduced emissions enormously, with no measurable effect except on local environments - which is certainly a good thing in its own right.

By all means let's reduce emissions and make everything we do more efficient and more environmentally sound, but don't try to tell us that it's going to solve the global warming situation, because it just isn't true, and those who support the theory of human caused global warming are mostly just using the issue to push a political agenda.

Dave

re: "MDE, I haven't run into anyone but the most trenchant ideologues who think the earth hasn't warmed up a bit in the last 500 or so years"

Are we talking about 'a bit' of warming or about melting glaciers?

Mark

re: "The real argument is whether this is just the natural cycle which it appears to be, or whether humans had any impact on the trend"

I contend that at, this point, this is an academic exercise with little importance to the social policy questions that we need to get to when we accept that significant change is in the wind.

Mark

Again... we're reading different sources. Everything I read, that doesn't have either a right-wing or anti-environmentalist agenda, points to a broad consensus among scientists. From what I've read, the people denying it are mostly cranks like Michael Crichton and non-scientists who have a political agenda.

As soon as I have time, I'll find and post the links backing up the broad consensus I am referring to. It might well be worth a new post.

Dave Nalle: The overwhelming majority if climate scientists believe there IS global warming, but also believe it is NOT caused by humans. This isn't a theory, it's a fact. Your consensus does not exist. In that context, the NCPA is not pushing a radical agenda, they're presenting the facts as supported by 83% of climate scientists.

I'd like to see the questions, the full results, and who actually took the survey; because I think your interpretation is incomplete and/or inaccurate.

Eric, Your monkey is funded by exxon mobil and supports global warming so there will be more bananas! I breathe exhaust fumes because they are ok! Plastic never hurt anyone! Bovine growth hormone is good for your children! The clean water act was supposed to make all water fishable and swinable by the 1980's, but we are doing a good job here in AmeriKa

personally, here in Ohio, I'm all for global warming. I would love to see the North Coast become a tropical resort area and my property values triple

MDE: "Are we talking about 'a bit' of warming or about melting glaciers?"

While there are lots of anecdotal reports of melting glaciers there has yet to be a measurable increase in sea levels, which suggests that the melting glaciers one place are refreezing somewhere else. And regardless, we're talking about 1.6 degrees, which is a 'bit' of warming.

Mark

Jon: "Again... we're reading different sources. Everything I read, that doesn't have either a right-wing or anti-environmentalist agenda, points to a broad consensus among scientists. From what I've read, the people denying it are mostly cranks like Michael Crichton and non-scientists who have a political agenda."

Then the sources you are reading and not citing are biased. Not having a right wing or anti-government agenda implies that your sources are equally biased from the other direction. My source is the Gallup organization. Are you going to say they are biased to the right?

Jon: "As soon as I have time, I'll find and post the links backing up the broad consensus I am referring to. It might well be worth a new post."

Find one which actually surveys climatologists, not something like the Mother Jones piece which merely states there is a broad consensus.

JR: "I'd like to see the questions, the full results, and who actually took the survey; because I think your interpretation is incomplete and/or inaccurate."

Gallup charges $95 for full access to its polls, but I was able to use their site to confirm the poll exists and I've found multiple detailed references to it on the web. Just do a google search for (gallup poll climatology)

BTW, even the IPCC can't seem to get climatologists to support global warming. They did a survey of scientists from an environmentalist mailing list and still didn't get a consensus in favor of global warming. Check this article out http://freedompage.home.mindspring.com/ippc.htm

Richard: "The clean water act was supposed to make all water fishable and swinable by the 1980's, but we are doing a good job here in AmeriKa"

As someone who lived through the era prior to the implementation of the Clean Water act through its implementation I've always been amazed at how well it worked. I remember when the Charles River in Boston used to catch on fire periodically because of industrial methane-producing waste floating in it. Today you can fish or swim in the Charles. that's pretty amazing for 30-some years.

Dave

Dave, You should stay in a field you know about. To call the claen water act a success because a river does not catch fire is the lamest thing I have ever heard. Our waters are even more deadly than ever. The goals of the clean water act have never been realized, and it had been more than 20 years since it was supposed to have been successsful. I don't know the present condition of the Charles, nor do I have the time to check, but thousands of miles of streams in every state have consumption warnings, limiting fish intake. We don't even regulate for drugs and personal care product limitations in our streams, let alone hormone mimiking chemicals.

Dave, Just for your information It was the Cuyahoga River that inspired the nation to enact the Clean Water Act: And it was the national goal to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters by 1985. Where do you think highway runoff goes? Do you think it is good for fish? How smart are you?

http://www.cwru.edu/artsci/engl/marling/60s/pages/richoux/

I've gone ahead and posted quotes and links that I think go pretty far towards adding up to conclusive evidence of the "broad consensus." I thought it was worth its own post, but I accidentally filed it under Culture instead of Politics. Then I realized it fits just as well under Culture.

From what I've observed, the Clean Water Act has had some successes and some failures. The waters around New York City are significantly cleaner than they were in the 70s, and I witnessed the cleanup of the Charles too, as Dave points out.

Dave, regarding the link you just posted, it's from back in 1997 again - how could it have been referring to the latest IPCC report?

John, Sure some success, some failure. Did they meet their goal by 1985? No. Have they met it 20 years later? No. Some success!

>>From what I've observed, the Clean Water Act has had some successes and some failures. The waters around New York City are significantly cleaner than they were in the 70s, and I witnessed the cleanup of the Charles too, as Dave points out. <<

Richard seems not to grasp the fact that my comment on the Charles was purely anecdotal. Given how polluted the Charles was - as I recall they used to have a security fence to keep people away from the river - the degree to which it was cleaned up is truly amazing. I can also comment with personal knowledge about the Potomac and the James and the Chesapeake Bay area in general - where I used to dive. They're also remarkably cleaner and healthier than they were.

I never claimed that the clean water act had made every drop of water in the country pure as 30,000 year old glacial melt, but from what I've seen the results in at least some major problem areas have been pretty damned impressive.

Dave

I guess Dave is easily impressed, either that of he knows little of the health of our Nations waterways. No one is saying pure it terms of cleanliness, just wanted to make a point that, just because something seems better than before, doesn't mean it is. We are talking about the Nations waters, not particular streams that were so bad they caught fire. Today we have male fish producing eggs, so it that better?

If you stupid right wing bastards want to talk about clean waters rather than say some idiotic thing like "its better" Take a look at your states 303(d) list that lists all the impaired waterways in your state, which lists the reasons that particular waterway is impaired and then tell me the clean water act is working.

No need to start calling people, bastards. Sheesh. Fear who you might become :-)

"If you stupid right wing bastards "

Taking a cue from your new leader Howard Dean I see.

That'll get you exactly nowhere in '06 or '08.

Oh BTW I want one of these: "Today we have male fish producing eggs"

Think of the possibilities! I'll be swimmming in Bass caviar.

And rich, rich, RICH I tell ya!
Bring on the dirty streams and lakes.

Richard, you epitomize the pessimism which has doomed the left to irrelevance in modern politics. For you the glass is always half empty and never even a little bit full.

In the face of some notable victories for water cleaning you can't say "good, but we have to do better", you have to reject, deny and demand. It's not a victory unless it's total, and it's always doom and gloom.

This sort of attitude discourages progress. Because no increment of progress is ever good enough people become dismayed and discouraged.

The standard scenario: set an unrealistic goal, achieve great things getting part way there, then reject the entire process because it was a 'failure', even though measured objectively the outcome was positive.

It must be a depressing world to live in.

Dave

I had the same reaction to Richard's posts, but I wouldn't extrapolate it to "pessimism which has doomed the left to irrelevance in modern politics." I don't believe his attitude is typical of people "on the left." Environmentalists (and I'm not referring to the radical fringe, here) tend to be a celebratory lot, I think, actually, celebrating small or partial victories, then moving on to try to do more.

I'm guilty of generalizing about "the right" too, sometimes. I try to be aware of it.

Ah, but I see Richard's reaction as part of an overall pattern. Look at the attitude of Steve S. and Natalie on the gay marriage issue, particularly the recent article and discussion of the civil unions in Connecticut. It's a big step forward, but for them it's a hideous failure because it's not a 100% victory. Same thing with healthcare - nothing but a socialized medical system will do - a hybrid system is unacceptable. Same thing with environmental issues. Even though drilling in ANWR is really not an environmental disaster, it's taken as the first sign of an environmental apocalypse. It goes on and on. Every little bump in the road is a mountain and every pothole is a bottomless pit.

Dave

"How could reducing CO2 emissions possibly NOT make sense?"

Fair enough. Stop breathing.

Or choke a kitten.

Make more movies about the coming changes like "Day after Tomorrow"

This movie was pure fiction. No one credible takes it seriously.

"cranks like Michael Crichton"

You just KNEW this attack was coming...

"Our waters are even more deadly than ever."

Cite?

Hey damm it!

Where the hell are my male roe carrying bass?

And while your at it toss in a couple trans-sexual tarpon from the Florida Keys

Why is it doom and gloom to state that when the act didn't meet the goal in 1985, and still dosent? Are your standards lower than mine? Since the United states dosen't measure the amounts of personal care products and drugs in our waters in a systematic way, we can't even tell how deadly our waters are. I noticed no one said they looked at the 303(d) list for their state, how convenient of you. George Bush dosen't want to measure the effect of global warming on people or the environment either, that way we can all stick our heads in the sand and state how rosy everything is.

Actually drilling ANWR isn't such a big deal. The cariboo(?)are going to die anyway because of global warming, so who cares?

>>Why is it doom and gloom to state that when the act didn't meet the goal in 1985, and still dosent?<<

It's doom and gloom because you seem to place no value on the progress which HAS been made and gripe because we haven't met other less realistic goals.

I'd just like to hear you admit that our waterways are, overall, much cleaner than they were in the 1960s.

Dave

Oh Dave I bet you don't know allot about the water quality near your home, let alone the nations. Tell me what progress has been made? Rivers don't burn? What about all the new chemicals that are added to the streams every day? Thta isn't necessarily progress. And belive me I bet no one who knows anything about endocrine distuptors or PPNs in out waterways will state that out waters are cleaner. If they do, they could not prove it.

The big problem is that the goals of the clean water act were possible to achieve much more efficiently back them. We diodn't seem to care enough to try, and now because of infrastucture , it would be much more difficult. Now we have chemicals never dreamed of in the 60's flowing in our streams, and we are still discovering their effect on aquatic life.

Here is a link obout endocrine disruptors

Richard (or is it richard) no river has caught fire since 1969.

Richard, I don't know of anywhere in the nation where it's legal for any kind of industrial waste to be discharged directly into a waterway or even in such a way that it can get into the water table. Right now in this area they're mainly battling issues with pesticide runoff from golf courses and the like. Are things somehow different in other parts of the country?

Dave

Yea, I know, but someone thinks that proves the clean water act is a success!

Richard, 50 years ago they were dumping sulfuric acid and petroleum biproducts directly into rivers. They don't do that anymore. On the most basic level that's success. Embrace it.

Dave

Dave, Please list the rivers this was happening in. For every one you list there will be 10 that have serious other problems that you know nothing about. Richard

Runoff from streets can be considered industrial runoff, and it is happening all the time.
How about MTBE? This is going into the aquifers in the west, and Bush wants to allow the oil companies to get away scott free! Hows that for republican clean living?

This is such a Hot topic!!! Oh my, Oh my ohmyoh moyamo moy a a a a ahhhhh.

thanks guys

Richard, are you honestly trying to say that our waterways and groundwater are MORE polluted now than they were 30 years ago? Can you even honestly say that they're as much as half as polluted overall as they were in the 70s?

Dave

Has anyone got an mp3 of the instantly infamous Randi Rhodes radio comedy sketch that supposedly involves promoting shooting W? There was a link for a fan page on Drudge, but they look to have been instantly overwhelmed by the Drudge traffic.

Dave,
I am saying the pollutants in our waterways today are less understood than the ones used back in the 70's. The implications of endocrine disrupting chemicals and the interactions of these and the drugs pissed out of old and sick people are a growing threat to our waterways and no one is doing anything about it. The Clean Water Act was not designed to address these problems. I also believe that there are more waterways that are polluted than in the 70's, just due to population increases. Richard

The Clean Water act does theoretically keep wastewater from getting into our rivers directly, so that ought to minimize the impact anything coming from the urine of old people even if that's not included specifically in the act.

Dave

Dave,
Bush and his cronies keep making the sewage treatment plant rules laxer and laxer, so yes although you are right that a total revamp of nearly all sewage treatment plants would put clean water back into the system, the republicans just this year made it even more difficult to have clean water in our streams and ocean. Richard

The Clean Water act does theoretically keep wastewater from getting into our rivers directly, so that ought to minimize the impact anything coming from the urine of old people even if that's not included specifically in the act.

Dave, Your staement above shows how little you know of this subject. Circular thinking/statements aren't convincing

Frankly, Richard, your doomsaying is extraordinarily unconvincing. If this is all such a problem where are the studies, where are the disasters, where's the 'smoking gun' as it were?

And as for Bush's environmental regulations all I've seen are minor changes, some of which actually strengthen regulations. Plus this kind of regulation is properly the role of state legislatures and Bush doesn't control them.

Dave

Dave, I gave you a link to information on endocrine disruptors, I told you that BushCo has eased the sewage treatment plant rules this year,(find it yourself) and there is no doomsday scenario at all. It is what is is Dave.
Tell me, what environmental regulations regarding water have been strengthened? There Are None! Absolutely None, and Water is the Subject here Buddy Boy! If you read all of my posts here you would see that Bush avoids studies so there appears to be no problem, or did you fail to grasp that?

methinks the key with the environment, as with so many other issues, is [i]balance[/i]. And, [b]as with so many other issues[/b], it's the more extreme elements on both sides that actually serve to fuel each others' tempers, leaving the moderates on both sides feeling somewhat annoyed and fed up with the whole argument.
I suppose I can be grateful that here in england, at least, our environmental lobbyists do not seem anywhere near so effective. Which in turn, means the "green" cause does not lose quite so much credibility to extreme elements.
However, seeing as how the US is so much larger, maybe you guys should send alll the extreme people on both sides over here, and we'll swap them for the moderates over here, and just maybe we can come up with a reasonable solution?
Hah! i must be drunk to even consider such a pipe dream...

>>Tell me, what environmental regulations regarding water have been strengthened? There Are None! Absolutely None, and Water is the Subject here Buddy Boy! If you read all of my posts here you would see that Bush avoids studies so there appears to be no problem, or did you fail to grasp that?<<

Getting a bit defensive, are we? Ever bothered to read the EPAs regulations on water? While there may not have been major legislation on water quality during the Bush administration, the EPA has been quite active in monitoring the types of contaminants you're concerned about and issuing regulations under the authority of existing law impacting disposal of waste and monitoring and treatment of ground and surface water. It's all there on the EPA website.

Perhaps you should check out some of the recent new regulations, like the new rules making dyes and pigments hazardous waste. If you search the site you can find new regulations on all sorts of questionable substances. Sure looks like they're still doing their job under Bush.

Dave

That's the thing. Executive-branch agencies essentially make their own law. And federal courts generally uphold these laws.

So, while there may not have been any mojor federal legislation on the particular issue of water pollution over the last 4+ years, that does not mean that increased standards and regulations haven't been approved...

Dave, as usual, you don't seem to read much what others write. The things I am concerned about are drugs and personal care products into the sewage treatment plants. No one has issued any regulations about their disposal into the sewers, what are they going to do, ask you to pee somewhere else? What about Bush's poor attempt at eliminating Clintons arsenic standards, and subsequent rollover?

Dave, Sorry, the link you gave was as stupid as your argument. Tell me more about water, not hazardous wastes. Richard

I'm still boggled by the male roe-carrying fish. Will that apply to male humans, too? Does that mean GUYS will now have an equal chance at getting pregnant? Yee-HAH! I KNEW there had to be justice somewhere in the universe!

Richard,

Bush won't touch those issues (re. drugs/personal care products).

IT isnt an issue thats on teh forefront of Ameria's conscience and so he'll ignore it. Same as most politicians do, and same as GWB always does.

I guess I'm missing something here, Richard. You now think that water is in and of itself dangerous? Isn't the problem actually the hazardous wastes and the process by which they get into the water? That's what the link I provided addresses. In this case specifically hazardous waste relating to personal care products, which is what you brought up.

And don't keep trying to blame this on Bush. This is the sort of thing the EPA should deal with and has dealt with in the past primarily on its own authority. It doesn't require presidentially-signed legislation.

Dave

Dave, care to comment on arsenic? How about sewage treatment plants? Or the clean water act? or is it just Bush is doing a good job and the rivers are cleaner than ever? What a load! Come on, give me something! BTW, George's appointees for the EPA are a very sorry lot.

I'm opposed to arsenic and sewage, except in the cases of certain individuals who refuse to see reason, in which case I recommend the first for ingestion and the second for bathing.

I do like facts, though. Regardless of your endless dooming and glooming, the rivers are cleaner and the EPA is passing measures to control all sorts of pollutants under the authority of the clean water act and other acts. You can not like Bush all you want, but you can't change these basic facts.

Dave

Dave, to bad you can't present any facts that you proclaim to "like".
Again, I am not dooming and glooming, you cannot prove that our waters are cleaner. And the EPA recentle relaxed sewage treatment rules:
www.usatoday.com/news/washington/ 2003-11-02-sewer-rules-usat_x.htm

Get your facts straight boy

Dave,
I think you wanted this link

So the EPA has done an analysis of the issue you're most concerned with, Richard. Isn't that a first step towards doing something about it? I don't see what your problem is with that. It seems like what you'd want.

As for cleaner water, let me direct you to this story from the best news station in my old home town of Washington DC, about waterways I have personal experience of both before and after cleanup. http://wrc.iewatershed.com/index.php?pagename=news_021016

Dave

Dave,
Its too bad you have to embrace happy little articles like this and presume that they are based on facts. If you don't measure certain pollutants, of course the water appears cleaner. How about this:
http://www.nos.noaa.gov/products/pubs_hypox.html
which shows the problem is growing.

I provided the info you asked for Richard. If you chose to ignore it, and ignore the implications of the links you yourself provided, that's fine. There's clearly not much point in discussing this with you. As far as you're concerned there will never be any progress and water will always be tainted by something until humanity and all its works are wiped from the face of the earth. Are you familiar with the term 'luddite'. Embrace it, own it.

Dave

Dave, You provided nothing, and you proved yourself by embrasing "touchie feelie" news rather than hard science.

Dosen't that make you a luddite?

You clearly have no idea what a luddite is, nor can you spell.

Richard, all you have is more and more negativity and no acceptance of anything positive. As news articles go the one I linked to was loaded with specific detail and actual fact. But if you want some hard data on the improvements in the area here's this link - http://www.potomacriver.org/water_quality/water_quality.htm - take a look at some of their testing report PDFs. But overall look at this site as an example of how a region can work with businesses and local governments to improve water quality more effectively than just complying with what's required by the EPA. It's a model example of how progress can be made when you put scaremongering aside and look for real solutions.

But I know the facts don't matter to you because improvement isn't of interest to you. No matter how much better things have gotten it's clearly never good enough for you.

You're literally a classic example of the 'glass half empty' mentality and you seem to be completely unable to break out of it.

Dave

Spelling schmelling If you are afraid of technology, you seem to be a luddite.

How nice the potomac is cleaner, too bad the Nation's waters are not. Did you not read about the growing dead zone in the Gulf? or is that too much science for your little head?

So now the Potomac region, all 14,000 acres of it has seceded and joined another country? Well, at least it's nice to see you acknowledge that it actually IS cleaner. That's progress in my book.

You're clearly not familiar with the gulf, unlike those of us who live here who are aware that the hypoxia zone is a seasonal phemoenon caused by the relative stillness and shallowness of the gulf waters and the heat of the summer. There's no reason to think it hasn't been there for ages despite the fact that it has only been officially studied since the 1970s. If it has grown larger it's mainly because the hurricaines in the last few years have mostly gone north rather than west, so it took longer to break up at the end of the summer season.

There are sedimentary studies which show the hypoxic zone has been there for hundreds of years and marine biologists believe it may be part of the natural cycle of the gulf ecology. It is almost certainly not caused by pollution from fertilizers as some have claimed, as similar zones exist in other shallow seas like the Red Sea where there is virtually no runoff.

For a good article debunking the Dead Zone theories see http://www.fumento.com/environment/sharks.html

Dave

Dave,
I finally get it! You take that happy unscientific news and proclaim it science! Then you can discount the scientists what actually know what the hell is going on. That hakes us all feel better, now let us hold hands and sing Kumbaiya! Luddite?

Source of nitrogen in the Mississippi basin

Fumento is one of the most widely read and respected science columnists in the country. He writes for all the major news outlets. You're telling me he has no idea what he's talking about?

Dave

If you bothered to look at the link in his site where he questions nitrogen as the source of hypoxia, you will see that the first few years the coorelation is tenuous, but the last 5 years they are dead on. So, in answer to your question, yes his skepticism has no real basis. You see I have a science background also and can think and read charts for myself.

Richard:

Since you maintain that you have a scientific background, and claim to know so much about aquatic life, what are your thoughts on the harvesting of krill in the oceans around Antarctica?

It's considered cheating, BTW, to simply post a link to an article...

Richard, I have a background in statistical demography so I'm more than familiar with charts myself. I'm also familiar with what is and is not good data, and on the gulf hypoxia issue there just isn't enough data over any meaningful span of time to draw anything like the conclusions you've drawn. Plus you completely ignore the sediment analysis which shows that it's been going on for centuries.

Dave

Dave,

You are well off-base for your "there's no scientific consensus" theory re: global warming. You don't even have to take my word for it, as this is the 21st century and superior forms of mass communication exist. ASK THE FOLKS THEMSELVES. Go tell them what they believe, I'm sure they'll appreciate it.

Also, now would be a good time to thank the environmentalists for keeping your rivers from burning.

Try to fit that into your leftie bashing at some point, if you have the power.

Wow, I thought this had died. RJ, I never claimed to "know so much about aquatic life". And Dave, Your boy Fumento has nothing on Dr. David Suzuki. I tend to believe real scientists with actual data, rather than a "science columnist". Didn't know a link was cheating, though you people did it all the time.

Wah: "You are well off-base for your "there's no scientific consensus" theory re: global warming. You don't even have to take my word for it, as this is the 21st century and superior forms of mass communication exist. ASK THE FOLKS THEMSELVES. Go tell them what they believe, I'm sure they'll appreciate it."

I'm not a climatologist, just someone who's interested in learning about the subject and finding the truth which seems to be obscured by politics far too often. Thanks for the link to that site, though. I doubt I'll ever post there, but it looks like a great resource for further information.

Wah: "Also, now would be a good time to thank the environmentalists for keeping your rivers from burning."

Pretty sure I already did that a number of times. Wish I could get Richard to do the same.

Dave

I just want to thank Bush for my roe carrying male fish

The problem with Roe carrying male fish and sex changing frogs actually pre-dates the Bush administration, does it not, Richard?

Dave

I'm glad you're getting the winter in Spring that I never got this year.

Yes it does Dave, and we have Bush to thank for cleaning our waters up, so we won't have to worry about that anymore! Yeehaw!

We should thank Bush, Richard? From what I've seen he pretty much supported the status quo and has left management of the environment to the EPA. He hasn't made things significantly worse, but the progress I've been talking about predates Bush by years and years.

Dave