Why liberals fear global warming far more than Conservatives do?

[Rahab]

So do I, Rahab. As a matter of fact, I appreciate it so much that I'd rather spare them an emotional investment in an undeserving cause.

Bless you, girl.

Perspective, Rahab! Does my minor faux pas really compare to Trout's recent aspersions on your character? You do know he's cast you in with the League of Rodent Voters? He's attempting to link you with the Unholy Alliance as well. It's at times like these that we should put aside these minor differences and address the real threats to our society.

Someone is bound to call you pretentious and pompous if you use the word "aspersions" again.

Now that you have made me aware of the atrocity of such fishy manoeuver, I shall debunk those infame rumors by reducing my mignonne gerbille to the status of a bubonic plagued rat.

*dries her eyes*

Can you also wipe my glasses...zey tend to fog up wiz tears. Sank you.

I know. Inhumanity is always difficult to face. But remember, he's not a human, he's a fish.

The word "Trout" evocates the vision of a "truite meuniere", sauteed in butter, sprinkled with parsley and almonds and the final touch of a slice of lemon.

PS: we probably should limit our entertaining exchanges for now as someone is bound to fuss about them.

[Simeon]

The problem with your claims is that one, we do have data, and two, the Greenland ice-cap is shrinking, not growing, I'll show a few quotes from a news article (Source and more here: http://www.latimes.com/news/science/...&track=tottext)

Across the ice cap, however, the area of seasonal melting was broader last year than in 27 years of record-keeping, University of Colorado climate scientists reported. In early May, temperatures on the ice cap some days were almost 20 degrees above normal, hovering just below freezing.

From cores of ancient Greenland ice extracted by the National Science Foundation, researchers have identified at least 20 sudden climate changes in the last 110,000 years, in which average temperatures fluctuated as much as 15 degrees in a single decade.

By 2005, Greenland was beginning to lose more ice volume than anyone expected — an annual loss of up to 52 cubic miles a year — according to more recent satellite gravity measurements released by JPL.

It doesn't sound like the Greenland ice-cap is growing to me, it sounds like it's shrinking.

You have confused the ice cap(s) with the total area covered in ice.

At the center of the source or origin of the glaciers it is actually thicker or could be thicker and the scientists are confirming this because most have been drinking the "global warming" crisis kool-aid drill.

Now, in no way am I suggesting that the melting edges or the melting around the coast of Greenland amounts to nothing, I am simply attributing this to climatic change.

And, indeed, I hope your Happy Fourth beverages are brimming in ICE! ;-)

[Nicholas]

You have confused the ice cap(s) with the total area covered in ice.

At the center of the source or origin of the glaciers it is actually thicker or could be thicker and the scientists are confirming this because most have been drinking the "global warming" crisis kool-aid drill.

Now, in no way am I suggesting that the melting edges or the melting around the coast of Greenland amounts to nothing, I am simply attributing this to climatic change.

And, indeed, I hope your Happy Fourth beverages are brimming in ICE! ;-)

The major problem with your conclusion is that you have presented no evidence that the amount of snowfall is significant enough to offset the ice being lost.

In case you haven't had time to read the previous articles that I provided links to, here is some further information on this subject.

After Antarctica, Greenland's ice cap contains the second largest mass of frozen freshwater in the world. The Arctic island has a net loss of about 50 billion gallons (227 billion liters) of ice each year, which can cause a measurable rise in sea levels.

Source and more: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/...ice/index.html

[Carpedm9587]

The major problem with your conclusion is that you have presented no evidence that the amount of snowfall is significant enough to offset the ice being lost.

In case you haven't had time to read the previous articles that I provided links to, here is some further information on this subject.

After Antarctica, Greenland's ice cap contains the second largest mass of frozen freshwater in the world. The Arctic island has a net loss of about 50 billion gallons (227 billion liters) of ice each year, which can cause a measurable rise in sea levels.

Source and more: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/...ice/index.html

First - let me say that I do believe we are altering our climate withour greenhouse gases and I think we should be doing something about it.

At the same time, I tend to be suspect of too much rhetoric, and I try to get past the rhetoric to the details when I can. The claim that 27 billion liters of water lost of Greenland will measurably raise the ocean levels is a bit of a stretch. Unless I missed something in the math, and based on the premise that:

1) one liter = volume contained in a square decimeter
2) there are 335,258,000 sq. km of oceans in the world

I get an annual increase of .00067691 millimeters, or .00002665 inches.

At that rate it would take the oceans over 37,000 years to gain an inch, and over 450,000 years to gain a foot (due to Greenland alone).

My $.02

Michel

[Nicholas]

First - let me say that I do believe we are altering our climate withour greenhouse gases and I think we should be doing something about it.

At the same time, I tend to be suspect of too much rhetoric, and I try to get past the rhetoric to the details when I can. The claim that 27 billion liters of water lost of Greenland will measurably raise the ocean levels is a bit of a stretch. Unless I missed something in the math, and based on the premise that:

1) one liter = volume contained in a square decimeter
2) there are 335,258,000 sq. km of oceans in the world

I get an annual increase of .00067691 millimeters, or .00002665 inches.

At that rate it would take the oceans over 37,000 years to gain an inch, and over 450,000 years to gain a foot (due to Greenland alone).

My $.02

Michel

Math not being my area of strength, I'm not usually one to question another person's conclusions in that area, but the article that I linked to appears to reach a different conclusion.

In one lifetime, the rise would be nearly 1 centimeter (0.4 inches), if the rate were to remain the same, according to NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, which coordinated the study research.

[Carpedm9587]

Math not being my area of strength, I'm not usually one to question another person's conclusions in that area, but the article that I linked to appears to reach a different conclusion.

In one lifetime, the rise would be nearly 1 centimeter (0.4 inches), if the rate were to remain the same, according to NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, which coordinated the study research.

Well, simple division tells us that 227 billion liters distributed over 335 million square kilometers of ocean gives us about 634 liters per square kilometer per year. Now a liter is a cubic decimeter (one tenth of a meter), so 100 liters would cover one square meter to a depth of 100 millimeters (one decimeter), so if we are generous and round up, 700 liters would cover an area of 7 square meters to a depth of 100 millimeters. A square kilometer is 1,000,000 square meters, so 7 square meters is 7/1,000,000 of that space.

So our water would be 100 * 7/1,000,000 millimeters, or .0007 millimeters deep if spread over a square kilometer. And that's the expected annual increase - on the generous side.

Sorry, Nicholas. Someone made a math mistake. Either that or one of my base figures (the 227 billion liters, or the 325+ million sq. km. of ocean) is wrong. Or perhaps you are mixing up your facts. Perhaps it is ALL melt from ALL landmasses? However, if Greenland truly is the second largest ice mass, I have my doubts.

Assuming a lifetime is about 70 years, the ocean would rise only .049 millimeters, or about .002 inches (two thousandths), not .4 (four tenths) from Greenland melt alone. That a difference of two orders of magnitude.

Michel

[Nicholas]

Well, simple division tells us that 227 billion liters distributed over 335 million square kilometers of ocean gives us about 634 liters per square kilometer per year. Now a liter is a cubic decimeter (one tenth of a meter), so 100 liters would cover one square meter to a depth of 100 millimeters (one decimeter), so if we are generous and round up, 700 liters would cover an area of 7 square meters to a depth of 100 millimeters. A square kilometer is 1,000,000 square meters, so 7 square meters is 7/1,000,000 of that space.

So our water would be 100 * 7/1,000,000 millimeters, or .0007 millimeters deep if spread over a square kilometer. And that's the expected annual increase - on the generous side.

Sorry, Nicholas. Someone made a math mistake. Either that or one of my base figures (the 227 billion liters, or the 325+ million sq. km. of ocean) is wrong. Or perhaps you are mixing up your facts. Perhaps it is ALL melt from ALL landmasses? However, if Greenland truly is the second largest ice mass, I have my doubts.

Assuming a lifetime is about 70 years, the ocean would rise only .049 millimeters, or about .002 inches (two thousandths), not .4 (four tenths) from Greenland melt alone. That a difference of two orders of magnitude.

Michel

That is interesting, maybe it was an error on the part of the person writing the article?

[Simeon]

The major problem with your conclusion is that you have presented no evidence that the amount of snowfall is significant enough to offset the ice being lost.

In case you haven't had time to read the previous articles that I provided links to, here is some further information on this subject.

After Antarctica, Greenland's ice cap contains the second largest mass of frozen freshwater in the world. The Arctic island has a net loss of about 50 billion gallons (227 billion liters) of ice each year, which can cause a measurable rise in sea levels.

Source and more: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/...ice/index.html

I am sorry, but the issue on the table here is that Al Gore has no confirmation that the ice caps are thinner.

Some allege that the ice caps are thicker and I posted hotlinks.

These are inconvenient facts that you and Al Gore either cannot confirm or deny.

In any case, even if the ice is melting because of hot air gases or from a Hot Sun god - Helios or the burning fire ball of fision in the sky - the SUN, well then, there is not one tiny shred of evidence that the liberals (or Conservatives (or Frosty the Snowman)) can reverse this reality.

Al Gore is a bore and is full of global warming gas and gases of the Politically and profit minded.

[Wyzaard]

In any case, even if the ice is melting because of hot air gases or from a Hot Sun god - Helios or the burning fire ball of fision in the sky - the SUN, well then, there is not one tiny shred of evidence that the liberals (or Conservatives (or Frosty the Snowman)) can reverse this reality.

Well... stop releasing as much greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; that's a good start.

Al Gore is a bore and is full of global warming gas and gases of the Politically and profit minded.

The only people who profit in this debate are the ones who reap rich rewards by confusing the public into beliving that industry is having no negative effect on their lives. Oil intersts, coal interests, chemical interests, etc... they make money off of the status-quo of doing nothing, ensuring short-term profits and long-term destruction.

[Nicholas]

I am sorry, but the issue on the table here is that Al Gore has no confirmation that the ice caps are thinner.

Some allege that the ice caps are thicker and I posted hotlinks.

These are inconvenient facts that you and Al Gore either cannot confirm or deny.

In any case, even if the ice is melting because of hot air gases or from a Hot Sun god - Helios or the burning fire ball of fision in the sky - the SUN, well then, there is not one tiny shred of evidence that the liberals (or Conservatives (or Frosty the Snowman)) can reverse this reality.

Al Gore is a bore and is full of global warming gas and gases of the Politically and profit minded.

You can insist that the ice caps are growing thicker as much as you want, but all of the research points to the conclusion that they are shrinking, not growing.

Also, I both saw the links you posted, and responded to your claims, now perhaps you could respond to the links that I posted?

[Simeon]

You can insist that the ice caps are growing thicker as much as you want, but all of the research points to the conclusion that they are shrinking, not growing.

Also, I both saw the links you posted, and responded to your claims, now perhaps you could respond to the links that I posted?

Nope.

In a scant ten(10) years of research, as I posted, some studies indicate that the ice cap is thicker and some thinner. (Of course, you can post "evidence" that confirms your philosphical position as you like it.)

Now, perhaps we can agree that the total area is shrinking; however, the cause is not yet known.

Recently the London Telegraph reported that the Sun is the hottest it has been in 1,000 years.

Holy Helios!

Whooops.

Go and learn! (Al Gore left out the truly important evidence!)

News: Telgraph.co.uk

Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.

A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.

© source where applicable

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

[Nicholas]

Nope.

In a scant ten(10) years of research, as I posted, some studies indicate that the ice cap is thicker and some thinner. (Of course, you can post "evidence" that confirms your philosphical position as you like it.)

Now, perhaps we can agree that the total area is shrinking; however, the cause is not yet known.

Recently the London Telegraph reported that the Sun is the hottest it has been in 1,000 years.

Holy Helios!

Whooops.

Go and learn! (Al Gore left out the truly important evidence!)

News: Telgraph.co.uk

Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.

A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.

© source where applicable

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

I find it interesting that you not only used quotes in reference to my evidence but you also claimed it was based on philosophy. You may not have intended to do so it sounded as if you were insinuating that you did not consider my references as being evidence. If this is in fact your position, would you mind substantiating it? Why should the sources you cite be considered evidence but mine not be?

[sylas]

News: Telgraph.co.uk

Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.

A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.

© source where applicable

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

This is grossly irresponsible journalism -- or worse, a deliberate attempt to contribute to confusion.

The opening line is that "Global warming has finally been explained." Is this a reasonable implication of the research being reported? Not on your life!

The newspaper article is reporting research by Swiss and German scientists that suggest the Sun has been hotter over the last century, and that this may contribute to the phenomenon of global warming. There's nothing wrong with the research as far as I can see.

But is it "finally explained?" In the very article itself, the leader of the research comments as follows:

News: Telgraph.co.uk (Aug 2004)

Dr Solanki does not know what is causing the Sun to burn brighter now or how long this cycle would last.

He says that the increased solar brightness over the past 20 years has not been enough to cause the observed climate changes but believes that the impact of more intense sunshine on the ozone layer and on cloud cover could be affecting the climate more than the sunlight itself.

© source where applicable

Whoopsie! The increased brightness is not enough to account for measured warming. There's a speculation about indirect influences on cloud and ozone. It's a curious speculation... we already know of other effects such as greenhouse gases; so why is cloud cover being invoked? I would guess that this is because the research is attempted to explain correlations of climate with small changes in solar output over longer times than just recently -- but not because they are dismissive of the influences of greenhouse gases.

Indeed, if we look at the actual press release from the researchers, we find the following:

How Strongly Does the Sun Influence the Global Climate? (press release, Max Planck Society, Aug 2004)

Two scientists from the MPI for Solar System Research have calculated for the last 150 years the Sun’s main parameters affecting climate, using current measurements and the newest models: the total radiation, the ultraviolet output, and the Sun’s magnetic field (which modulates the cosmic ray intensity). They come to the conclusion that the variations on the Sun run parallel to climate changes for most of that time, indicating that the Sun has indeed influenced the climate in the past. Just how large this influence is, is subject to further investigation. However, it is also clear that since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming.

These findings bring the question as to what is the connection between variations in solar activity and the terrestrial climate into the focal point of current research. The influence of the Sun on the Earth is seen increasingly as one cause of the observed global warming since 1900, along with the emission of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, from the combustion of coal, gas, and oil. "Just how large this role is, must still be investigated, since, according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field, the significant increase in the Earth’s temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide," says Prof. Sami K. Solanki, solar physicist and director at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research.

© source where applicable

Look especially at the sentence I have in bold. These scientists agree with the rest of the scientific community that the greenhouse effect remains the major contributory factor.

And another thing... look at the date. This research was released two years ago. It is NOT some great new discovery of a new explanation for global warming. It is part of a large body of ongoing research to measure and quantify the many contributions to a complex phenomenon. And these scientists -- like just about every other responsible scientific researcher -- continues to recognize that the biggest effect in recent times is greenhouse gases.

The heading for the article was given as "The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame".

But that's not truth at all. It is recklessly irresponsible deliberate dishonesty. The article compounds its distortions by giving the last word not to any of the researchers, but to David Bellamy, a hopelessly inaccurate and completely marginalized global warming "skeptic".

Such journalistic irresponsibility is common. It is also being actively fostered and funded. Consider this recent report from the ABC:

Making Money by Feeding Confusion Over Global Warming (ABC news, July 28, 2006)

Ever wonder why so many people still seem confused about global warming?

The answer appears to be that confusion leads to profit — especially if you're in some parts of the energy business.

© source where applicable

This report is based on a memo recently from a Colorado electric company funnelling money to an academic global warming skeptic.

Skepticism is good. Science thrives on uncertain questions and figuring out what we don't know is the life blood of science. As this progresses, disagreement is normal and healthy.

However, the actual nature of disagreement and uncertainty is routinely misrepresented; and the role of industry in actively promoting and funding the side that they like is compromising both the science itself and worse -- compromising the truthful reporting of scientific debate to the public.

You can download and read the memo itself at a blog that is actively documenting and commenting on the PR work trying to confuse this whole issue. See "Vampire Memo" Reveals Coal Industry Plan for Massive Propaganda Blitz.

Cheers -- Sylas

[Tickle Me Goody]

Why liberals fear global warming far more than conservatives do

by Dennis Prager

Observers of contemporary society will surely have noted that a liberal is far more likely to fear global warming than a conservative.

Why is this?

After all, if the science is as conclusive as Al Gore, Time, Newsweek, The New York Times and virtually every other spokesman of the Left says it is, conservatives are just as likely to be scorched and drowned and otherwise done in by global warming as liberals will. So why aren't non-leftists nearly as exercised as leftists are? Do conservatives handle heat better? Are libertarians better swimmers? Do religious people love their children less?

The usual liberal responses -- to label a conservative position racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic or the like -- obviously don't apply here. So, liberals would have to fall back on the one remaining all-purpose liberal explanation: "big business." They might therefore explain the conservative-liberal divide over global warming thus: Conservatives don't care about global warming because they prefer corporate profits to saving the planet.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...20/201891.html

So true. Discuss the "liberal mindset" or Leftwing or Al Gore agenda on "Global Warming".

I think that the discussion has gone off track. It was not an issue of whether or not global warming exists or even if it would be good or bad. The question was one of political differences of opinion.

I have a very liberal friend who was an activist opposing nuclear reactors. In a discussion of technical pros and cons, he finally conceded that his basic motivation was that he hated big business. In the final analysis technical issues were less important than political ones. Of course, it now turns out that nuclear generation of electricity is much to be preferred to burning of fossil fuels.

So why do liberals want to save the earth from global warming? I believe that is a liberal mindset that the government should take control to save everyone from everything that is bad for him or her. Conservatives tend naturally to want government to keep its nose out of everything. It does not matter if you are talking about global warming, smoking, obesity or anything else. Liberals will save us from ourselves. Conservatives are more inclined to accept whatever happens.

IMHO

GG

[geochron]

I think that the discussion has gone off track. It was not an issue of whether or not global warming exists or even if it would be good or bad. The question was one of political differences of opinion.

I have a very liberal friend who was an activist opposing nuclear reactors. In a discussion of technical pros and cons, he finally conceded that his basic motivation was that he hated big business. In the final analysis technical issues were less important than political ones. Of course, it now turns out that nuclear generation of electricity is much to be preferred to burning of fossil fuels.

So why do liberals want to save the earth from global warming? I believe that is a liberal mindset that the government should take control to save everyone from everything that is bad for him or her. Conservatives tend naturally to want government to keep its nose out of everything. It does not matter if you are talking about global warming, smoking, obesity or anything else. Liberals will save us from ourselves. Conservatives are more inclined to accept whatever happens.

IMHO

GG

It's because reality has a liberal bias. In fact the notion of an external reality with fixed features is a liberal notion nowadays.

Modern conservatives are really postmodern conservatives - they think bad things won't happen if they hide under the covers. If they can just convince the voters it isn't a problem it really won't be a problem. If they can win the argument with the scientists in the public domain, that's all they need to do about global warming. That's why they resort to toning down scientific reports to fit the political agenda.

More seriously though. Part of the reason is that being worried about global warming is part of the nouveau-right's definition of "liberal". "Liberal" in the new-right dictionary just means "anyone who doesn't agree with our narrow political view". So people worried about global warming are liberal by definition.