In an interview with Newsmax, Sarah Palin announces that she is a doubter that global warming is man-made, and talks about how drilling for more oil and natural gas will solve the energy problems of the United States. In fact, she criticizes George Bush’s lack of action on allowing more oil drilling in Alaska.
The most ironic thing about this interview, for me, was that she first outlined her reasons for being anti-abortion,
”I’m pro-life. I’ll do all I can to see every baby is created with a future and potential. The legislature should do all it can to protect human life.’
and then followed this with her views on the importance of exploiting oil and natural gas. So apparently the “future and potential” of human life does not need protecting from things like the proven detrimental health effects of air pollution from the burning of fossil fuels, and the negative effects of climate change–the intensification of tropical storms (were the victims of Katrina done exercising their potential, in her belief?), the loss of water and agricultural resources, and the more rampant spread of disease? Interesting…
Whether she is a good choice only time will tell. But, let’s be careful about connecting a black and white issue like abortion ( a baby is either dead or not) with environmental issues. The earth and its inhabitants are more robust than is implied by your statements. Sure, too much pollution can cause health issues. However, it is a stretch to assume, as you seem to imply, that advocating ways to increase supply as a means to lower prices and reduce independence on foreign markets will produce health consequences on par with what happens to an aborted (read: “dead”) baby.
Secondly, your objection to her doubts about man-made global warming are something you better get used to. As science and common sense eventually overtake political correctness, man-made global warming will be recognized for what it is, just another Chicken Little story.
Protecting the environment needs to be based on sensibility and sound science rather than irrationality, panic and political agendas.
That’s my two-cents worth.
With a Ph.D. in the physical sciences, I think I have a fairly good grasp on the sound science of global warming…clearly, better than many of the Republicans currently creating the fiction to put on their party platform. And if you read the medical literature on the health effects of pollution created by vehicles, power plants, and other pollution, you will see that there are deaths caused directly and indirectly by our dependence on oil. I think that those who claim to be “pro-life” but don’t protect living people…those who have been born…are tremendously hypocritical. Neither party is pro-life by my standards, but one party seems far more interested in the actual health of the both the world and the inhabitants of it.
Gaj,
If in fact you have a Ph.D. in the physical sciences (and I have no reason to doubt you) you are certainly better positioned to make informed opinions about environmental matters than most people of any political party. I respect your knowledge and your degree. Still, I’m sure you would agree that this does not give you a monopoly on informed thought. I know for certain that I can find experienced and well educated scientists and engineers that take exception to much of the current thought about environmental issues. I’ve worked with a bunch of them for many years. Some specialize in the environmental sciences.
The truth is that we really don’t fully understand what is causing the current warming pattern or how long it will continue. Could it be caused primarily by solar activity? If there were detectable warming on Mars would that support this alternative theory? How about prior warming trends when we had a significantly smaller carbon footprint? Would this indicate that the current warming is not man-made? It seems quite apparent to me that some things don’t add up. And since we’ve been through other pseudo crises in the past (e.g. the overpopulation scare in the 60’s and 70’s) I am highly suspicious of man-made global warming.
Another aspect of the issue is that we don’t completely understand how much warming is required to be harmful. In other words, a certain amount of climate change may not be a bad thing. We have computer model predictions, but these are not the same as knowing the potential impact.
I am not against research to develop solutions to known problems. It would be irresponsible to not do so. What I am against is the growing politicization of science. This is a huge problem because it’s leading to bad policy and inefficient use of our national resources. To better understand what I’m trying to say in a few words, you might want to check out “Science Funding — Politics & Porkbarrel” by Joseph P. Martino (ISBN 1-56000-033-3).
Just one man’s opinion.
I’m supposed to be working right now…and I haven’t had enough coffee yet…
>>Could it be caused primarily by solar activity? If there were detectable warming on Mars would that support this alternative theory?
No (definitely not primarily). First off, the solar activity idea has been considered seriously by a number of scientists and rejected based on more appropriate analysis of the original data in the 1991 Science paper (done by the original authors) and by further work. (For example, see http://www.edf.org/documents/5544_SolarActivity_One-pager.pdf for a brief explanation; there are a number of other new studies addressing this issue).
>> How about prior warming trends when we had a significantly smaller carbon footprint? Would this indicate that the current warming is not man-made?
I don’t know any scientists who deny that there were ever warming trends before, but the _rapidity_ of this warming, and the fact that it is accompanied by a significant change in atmostpheric chemistry, raises serious concerns. We lack the technology (and, in most cases, the money) to examine climate proxies (e.g. ice cores, pollen records, tree-ring records) at a fine enough scale to precisely time previous warming events, but for now most evidence indicates that todays warming is faster than in recent earth history.
Regardless of how I feel about Gore’s movie and about the politics surrounding global warming, I find his titile, ‘An Incovenient Truth’, to be quite telling in why there is so much skepticism about this. People were happy to trust scientists over the ozone hole, when the only action required was changing their hair-spray and the delivery of their antiperspirant (yes, it was more complicated in industry, but nothing on the level of green energy). But it is inconvenient to consider giving up oil revenues, cheap coal, heavy gas-powered engines…and suddenly there is doubt about the state of atmospheric science. Instead of America rising to technological challenges, using adaptability to solve problems, there is a tremendous complacency in big business and politics. I find that far more dangerous than pork barrel politics in science–which I think, like most pork, gets used in some good ways and some bad ways.