Global Climate Change

a.k.a Global Warming. I haven't been here in a while, and it appears that I have some work to do. First, I should disclose that I work amongst a bunch of environmental scientists, although I am not a scientist myself. But I'm far from a tree-hugging hippie. Tree MOLESTING, maybe, but no hugging.

That having been said, on to James' post:

This is ridiculous. I mean really. ANWR - at least the part of ANWR we would be drilling in - is a barren waste land, not a cathedral.

So, because you wouldn’t want to visit, that means we should drill the holy poop out of it? So I guess the “caribou herds, polar bears, grizzly bears, muskox, dall sheep, wolves, wolverines, snow geese, peregrine falcons” etc. are shit out of luck? So that we can, what, stave off paying an extra fifty cents a gallon for a month or so. In about 10-15 years when production is up and running? And if you think that oil drilling is clean and sanitary and can be done with little or no environmental impact, you're wrong.

He just wants to reduce U.S. energy consumption, and it is a convenient rationale to bring in other people who wouldn't normally support his deep green position.

Yes, this would truly be a tragedy.

And the idea that China will switch over to uneconomical hybrid cars simply because the U.S. has the "bully pulpit" is similarly absurd. We had the bully pulpit in 1989, and they still massacred the demonstrators at Tiennaman. They don't care about what we think about their internal policies. They certainly aren't going to wreck their economy to keep U.S. enviro activists happy.

A hybrid car is less economical than a gas-guzzling SUV? Puh-lease. The main reason hybrids are so expensive right now is that demand is high and supply is low. In the next few car model years, more hybrids will be built, and the price will gradually go down. And, you’re mixing your quotes up. The “bully pulpit” reference was to the Bush administration convincing Americans to buy more fuel-efficient cars, not China. I believe his point on China is that American demand drives most of the production in the world, and drives world demand. If Americans demand hybrid cars, the world will make hybrid cars, and the world will then buy hybrid cars. And how exactly are hybrid cars going to “wreck their economy?” If the production of hybrids increases and the price decreases to the point that hybrids cost as much as any other car, China will end up spending less on oil than they otherwise would. I think importing less and exporting more is a good thing, no?

Check out my article on the ES site

I have no idea what you’re talking about

Take this article. Science was basically lying to advance the Global Warming line. Environmentalists don't come at Global Warming from a neutral, fact finding framework. They view human activity as inherently evil and sinful and wrong, and want to contain it in any way possible.

Good old Benny Peiser is an anthropologist, not a climatologist or an environmental scientist. He seems to be really interested in comets, though. And, also, his “study” has been picked apart here, here, here, here, and also here. I guess I could also let the author of the study Benny Hill, er, Peiser purports to refute respond:

I stand by my work, which was published in a peer-reviewed refereed journal--indeed, one of the leading peer reviewed scientific journals in the world. If Mr Peiser has something that he thinks contributes to the discussion, then he should do the same--submit it for peer review, rather than trying to have the issue adjudicated in the mass media.

And I doubt “sinful” is a word most scientists would use, except maybe for effect, and they would never apply it to something as broad as “human activity.” Maybe to wasteful, stupid human activity, like driving a multi-ton paramilitary vehicle through downtown Manhattan. And getting 10 feet to the gallon while doing it.
In short, here’s the “consensus” on global warming:

The current scientific consensus on global warming is summarized by the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and endorsed by major national science academies. In their Third Assessment Report, they concluded that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities".

Does every scientist have exactly the same theory or opinion about climate change? No, of course not. There is, however, a consensus among the majority of scientists. Do I really need to go into the evidence for global warming?

There is no reason to force people to buy expensive hybrids just to make environmentalists happy. There is a lot of other things that money could go towards, instead of needlessly expensive vehicles: medical care, education, reuben sandwhiches, high speed internet access, you name it. It is a bad idea all around.

How about buying a hybrid to make yourself happy? Or to help out the people around you? To pollute less and use less fossil fuel? To cut down on the amount of chemicals we all have to inhale every day of our lives?

And I agree that hybrids are “needlessly expensive.” They could be made a lot cheaper if the government would give people the kind of tax breaks they give for Hummers. Currently, you get a $1000 tax rebate for buying a hybrid. Next year it’s $500. The year after that, nothing. Nice priorities. And, as for your list of things the money saved could go to, I suppose you could say that if we all drove hybrids, we could take the billions of dollars we would save on gas and oil and reinvest it in all those things. Plus our air would be cleaner and our world would be in better shape.