COLD ON WARMING

[XtremeJibber2001]

COLD ON WARMING

DEM VOTERS DON'T REALLY CARE

By RYAN SAGER
Gore: Lurid warnings inspire no action. Gore: Lurid warnings inspire no action.

July 14, 2006 -- EVERYBODY knows Republicans don't care about global warming. But here's some surprising news: Neither do Democrats.

That's the finding of a poll out this week from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, a survey of more than 1,500 U.S. adults last month. Pew found a huge partisan gap in how Americans perceive whether global warming exists and whether it's caused by humans, with Democrats tending to think it's real and man-made, and Republicans less convinced.

Yet, when asked to rate a selection of 19 national issues by importance, that gap looks less significant: Republicans ranked global warming 19th out of the 19 issues; Democrats ranked it 13th out of 19.

That there's a gap between the parties on the science of global warming isn't terribly surprising, though the size of the gap might be. Fully 81 percent of Democrats, versus 58 percent of Republicans, believe there is "solid evidence" that the Earth is getting warmer. And more than twice as many Democrats as Republicans (54 percent vs. 24 percent) believe "human activity" is to blame.

But if Democrats are so convinced global warming is real, and that modern industrial society is to blame, shouldn't it rank somewhere in - I don't know - their top five? After all, the Left's chief global-warming chin-stroker, Al Gore, makes a pretty dire series of predictions in his new movie, "An Inconvenient Truth." As recounted on his Web site, climatecrisis.net:

* Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years - to 300,000 people a year.

* Global sea levels could rise by more than 20 feet with the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and Antarctica, devastating coastal areas worldwide.

* Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense.

* Droughts and wildfires will occur more often.

* The Arctic Ocean could be ice free in summer by 2050.

* More than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction by 2050.

Yet, Democrats in the Pew poll said that all of these issues outrank global warming: health care, education, the economy, Social Security, Iraq, jobs, terrorism, the minimum wage (the minimum wage!), taxes, energy policy and the budget deficit. (Warming did manage to beat out flag burning and the inheritance tax among Dems.)

Why the disconnect?

Some of it is pure PC. Democrats know they're "supposed to" care about global warming and feel guilty about driving their SUVs back and forth to soccer practice and going through warehouses full of fast-food containers on family trips. But so long as the politicians play their prescribed roles (Democrats: furrowed-brow, ineffective concern; Republicans: utterly insincere, ineffective concern), it's just not a voting issue.

But the other part of the disconnect between "concern" and "demanding action" seems to be an entirely right-minded intuition about how a society has to set its priorities. According to the Pew survey, even among those who believe human activity has caused global warming and believe humans can reverse its effects, fully half recognize that battling back against climate change would entail "major sacrifices."

But if we're going to spend billions of dollars fighting global problems, aren't there a few - say, infectious diseases - where we could do a lot more good for a lot less money?

That was the premise of a recent exercise conducted by political scientist Bjorn Lomborg (author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist") with a number of U.N. diplomats (including U.S. Ambassador John Bolton). Lomborg gave each functionary a fictional $50 billion to spend on world problems - obliging them to chose which problems need to be solved first.

After listening to various presentations on global issues - such as climate change, communicable diseases, education, financial instability, governance and corruption, malnutrition and hunger, sanitation and water, and subsidies and trade barriers - and what it would cost to make a dent in them, they came up with a list of priorities. Much like in the Pew survey, global warming didn't rank very high. Adoption of the Kyoto Protocol came in 27th out of 40 policy proposals; other climate-change measures rounded out spots 38-40. Meanwhile, scaling up basic health care, HIV/AIDS and malaria control, and water-supply sanitation all ranked near the top.

The question is, at base: Where will any given dollar save the most lives? Fighting a possibly non-existent problem with almost-certainly ineffective means just doesn't make the cut.

So, while Republicans and Democrats may differ as to just how much moral preening they feel is required of them when it comes to global warming, they both recognize that America's priorities lie elsewhere.

Interesting. Deaths from global warming will double to 300,000 in 25 years? This stat alone is proof that Gore's new movie is purely political.

[Cityskier]

COLD ON WARMING

DEM VOTERS DON'T REALLY CARE

By RYAN SAGER
Gore: Lurid warnings inspire no action. Gore: Lurid warnings inspire no action.

July 14, 2006 -- EVERYBODY knows Republicans don't care about global warming. But here's some surprising news: Neither do Democrats.

That's the finding of a poll out this week from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, a survey of more than 1,500 U.S. adults last month. Pew found a huge partisan gap in how Americans perceive whether global warming exists and whether it's caused by humans, with Democrats tending to think it's real and man-made, and Republicans less convinced.

Yet, when asked to rate a selection of 19 national issues by importance, that gap looks less significant: Republicans ranked global warming 19th out of the 19 issues; Democrats ranked it 13th out of 19.

That there's a gap between the parties on the science of global warming isn't terribly surprising, though the size of the gap might be. Fully 81 percent of Democrats, versus 58 percent of Republicans, believe there is "solid evidence" that the Earth is getting warmer. And more than twice as many Democrats as Republicans (54 percent vs. 24 percent) believe "human activity" is to blame.

But if Democrats are so convinced global warming is real, and that modern industrial society is to blame, shouldn't it rank somewhere in - I don't know - their top five? After all, the Left's chief global-warming chin-stroker, Al Gore, makes a pretty dire series of predictions in his new movie, "An Inconvenient Truth." As recounted on his Web site, climatecrisis.net:

* Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years - to 300,000 people a year.

* Global sea levels could rise by more than 20 feet with the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and Antarctica, devastating coastal areas worldwide.

* Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense.

* Droughts and wildfires will occur more often.

* The Arctic Ocean could be ice free in summer by 2050.

* More than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction by 2050.

Yet, Democrats in the Pew poll said that all of these issues outrank global warming: health care, education, the economy, Social Security, Iraq, jobs, terrorism, the minimum wage (the minimum wage!), taxes, energy policy and the budget deficit. (Warming did manage to beat out flag burning and the inheritance tax among Dems.)

Why the disconnect?

Some of it is pure PC. Democrats know they're "supposed to" care about global warming and feel guilty about driving their SUVs back and forth to soccer practice and going through warehouses full of fast-food containers on family trips. But so long as the politicians play their prescribed roles (Democrats: furrowed-brow, ineffective concern; Republicans: utterly insincere, ineffective concern), it's just not a voting issue.

But the other part of the disconnect between "concern" and "demanding action" seems to be an entirely right-minded intuition about how a society has to set its priorities. According to the Pew survey, even among those who believe human activity has caused global warming and believe humans can reverse its effects, fully half recognize that battling back against climate change would entail "major sacrifices."

But if we're going to spend billions of dollars fighting global problems, aren't there a few - say, infectious diseases - where we could do a lot more good for a lot less money?

That was the premise of a recent exercise conducted by political scientist Bjorn Lomborg (author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist") with a number of U.N. diplomats (including U.S. Ambassador John Bolton). Lomborg gave each functionary a fictional $50 billion to spend on world problems - obliging them to chose which problems need to be solved first.

After listening to various presentations on global issues - such as climate change, communicable diseases, education, financial instability, governance and corruption, malnutrition and hunger, sanitation and water, and subsidies and trade barriers - and what it would cost to make a dent in them, they came up with a list of priorities. Much like in the Pew survey, global warming didn't rank very high. Adoption of the Kyoto Protocol came in 27th out of 40 policy proposals; other climate-change measures rounded out spots 38-40. Meanwhile, scaling up basic health care, HIV/AIDS and malaria control, and water-supply sanitation all ranked near the top.

The question is, at base: Where will any given dollar save the most lives? Fighting a possibly non-existent problem with almost-certainly ineffective means just doesn't make the cut.

So, while Republicans and Democrats may differ as to just how much moral preening they feel is required of them when it comes to global warming, they both recognize that America's priorities lie elsewhere.

Interesting. Deaths from global warming will double to 300,000 in 25 years? This stat alone is proof that Gore's new movie is purely political.

"Ryan Sager is a member of the editorial board of The New York Post."

I don't know what else to say other than your statement at the end of your post may have been one of the stupidest things I've ever read. Ever.

[XtremeJibber2001]

COLD ON WARMING

DEM VOTERS DON'T REALLY CARE

By RYAN SAGER
Gore: Lurid warnings inspire no action. Gore: Lurid warnings inspire no action.

July 14, 2006 -- EVERYBODY knows Republicans don't care about global warming. But here's some surprising news: Neither do Democrats.

That's the finding of a poll out this week from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, a survey of more than 1,500 U.S. adults last month. Pew found a huge partisan gap in how Americans perceive whether global warming exists and whether it's caused by humans, with Democrats tending to think it's real and man-made, and Republicans less convinced.

Yet, when asked to rate a selection of 19 national issues by importance, that gap looks less significant: Republicans ranked global warming 19th out of the 19 issues; Democrats ranked it 13th out of 19.

That there's a gap between the parties on the science of global warming isn't terribly surprising, though the size of the gap might be. Fully 81 percent of Democrats, versus 58 percent of Republicans, believe there is "solid evidence" that the Earth is getting warmer. And more than twice as many Democrats as Republicans (54 percent vs. 24 percent) believe "human activity" is to blame.

But if Democrats are so convinced global warming is real, and that modern industrial society is to blame, shouldn't it rank somewhere in - I don't know - their top five? After all, the Left's chief global-warming chin-stroker, Al Gore, makes a pretty dire series of predictions in his new movie, "An Inconvenient Truth." As recounted on his Web site, climatecrisis.net:

* Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years - to 300,000 people a year.

* Global sea levels could rise by more than 20 feet with the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and Antarctica, devastating coastal areas worldwide.

* Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense.

* Droughts and wildfires will occur more often.

* The Arctic Ocean could be ice free in summer by 2050.

* More than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction by 2050.

Yet, Democrats in the Pew poll said that all of these issues outrank global warming: health care, education, the economy, Social Security, Iraq, jobs, terrorism, the minimum wage (the minimum wage!), taxes, energy policy and the budget deficit. (Warming did manage to beat out flag burning and the inheritance tax among Dems.)

Why the disconnect?

Some of it is pure PC. Democrats know they're "supposed to" care about global warming and feel guilty about driving their SUVs back and forth to soccer practice and going through warehouses full of fast-food containers on family trips. But so long as the politicians play their prescribed roles (Democrats: furrowed-brow, ineffective concern; Republicans: utterly insincere, ineffective concern), it's just not a voting issue.

But the other part of the disconnect between "concern" and "demanding action" seems to be an entirely right-minded intuition about how a society has to set its priorities. According to the Pew survey, even among those who believe human activity has caused global warming and believe humans can reverse its effects, fully half recognize that battling back against climate change would entail "major sacrifices."

But if we're going to spend billions of dollars fighting global problems, aren't there a few - say, infectious diseases - where we could do a lot more good for a lot less money?

That was the premise of a recent exercise conducted by political scientist Bjorn Lomborg (author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist") with a number of U.N. diplomats (including U.S. Ambassador John Bolton). Lomborg gave each functionary a fictional $50 billion to spend on world problems - obliging them to chose which problems need to be solved first.

After listening to various presentations on global issues - such as climate change, communicable diseases, education, financial instability, governance and corruption, malnutrition and hunger, sanitation and water, and subsidies and trade barriers - and what it would cost to make a dent in them, they came up with a list of priorities. Much like in the Pew survey, global warming didn't rank very high. Adoption of the Kyoto Protocol came in 27th out of 40 policy proposals; other climate-change measures rounded out spots 38-40. Meanwhile, scaling up basic health care, HIV/AIDS and malaria control, and water-supply sanitation all ranked near the top.

The question is, at base: Where will any given dollar save the most lives? Fighting a possibly non-existent problem with almost-certainly ineffective means just doesn't make the cut.

So, while Republicans and Democrats may differ as to just how much moral preening they feel is required of them when it comes to global warming, they both recognize that America's priorities lie elsewhere.

Interesting. Deaths from global warming will double to 300,000 in 25 years? This stat alone is proof that Gore's new movie is purely political.

"Ryan Sager is a member of the editorial board of The New York Post."

I don't know what else to say other than your statement at the end of your post may have been one of the stupidest things I've ever read. Ever.

What does Sager have to do with Gore's statement? It's Gore who said that "Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years - to 300,000 people a year" .... need a screen shot from his website? Maybe you want to borrow my glasses?

[BigKahuna13]

What does Sager have to do with Gore's statement? It's Gore who said that "Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years - to 300,000 people a year" .... need a screen shot from his website? Maybe you want to borrow my glasses?

First, the NY Post is a right wing rag. Second, it's writers are barely literate, let alone able to put together a coherent thought. Fox News is
probably modelled on the Post.

How can you read a political motivation into a simple prediction like that,
which, while I haven't researched it, seems on the face of it reasonable enough.

[XtremeJibber2001]

What does Sager have to do with Gore's statement? It's Gore who said that "Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years - to 300,000 people a year" .... need a screen shot from his website? Maybe you want to borrow my glasses?

First, the NY Post is a right wing rag. Second, it's writers are barely literate, let alone able to put together a coherent thought. Fox News is
probably modelled on the Post.

How can you read a political motivation into a simple prediction like that,
which, while I haven't researched it, seems on the face of it reasonable enough.

Every media outlet is bias to one degree on another. The purpose of the post was to comment on the laughable figure of 300,000 people dying within the next 25 years because of global warming. I find that figure to be misleading and hilarious at best. Not to mention Gore's website conveniently leaves out the substance that they used to calculate the 300K they came up with. Hows that for an inconvenient truth!?

BK, how many people do you know that have been killed due to 'global warming'. Do they keep stats somewhere that I don't know about?

Oh, lets not forget, the Artic Ocean will have absolutely no ice in less than 50 years

[BigKahuna13]

What does Sager have to do with Gore's statement? It's Gore who said that "Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years - to 300,000 people a year" .... need a screen shot from his website? Maybe you want to borrow my glasses?

First, the NY Post is a right wing rag. Second, it's writers are barely literate, let alone able to put together a coherent thought. Fox News is
probably modelled on the Post.

How can you read a political motivation into a simple prediction like that,
which, while I haven't researched it, seems on the face of it reasonable enough.

Every media outlet is bias to one degree on another. The purpose of the post was to comment on the laughable figure of 300,000 people dying within the next 25 years because of global warming. I find that figure to be misleading and hilarious at best.

BK, how many people do you know that have been killed due to 'global warming'. Do they keep stats somewhere that I don't know about?

The Post is more than biased. I'd use it as catbox liner but my cat refuses to put her ass anywhere near it.

As I said I haven't researched it, but understanding that heat causes weather and more heat means more energetic weather is grade school science. No one with half a brain disputes that the earth is getting warmer, there is not one bit of observation data that I know of that counters the reams of observational data showing temperature rises.

It simply stands to reason that we will see more violent weather that will kill more people. More cases of drought that will kill more people etc, etc.
I have no idea how they quantified things, but it again doesn't seem out of line. In fact it seems smaller than I would have initially guessed.

Once again the only quasi-open issue with respect to global warming is how much of it is man made.

[Bubba]

I could guess how they estimate 300,000 but it would be purely conjecture - increased intensity of storms, increased drought in some areas, spread of tropical diseases, etc.

I would like to know, however, how many people might live better as a result of warming - longer growing seasons, more food in some areas, etc.

The coin may have two sides....

[XtremeJibber2001]

What does Sager have to do with Gore's statement? It's Gore who said that "Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years - to 300,000 people a year" .... need a screen shot from his website? Maybe you want to borrow my glasses?

First, the NY Post is a right wing rag. Second, it's writers are barely literate, let alone able to put together a coherent thought. Fox News is
probably modelled on the Post.

How can you read a political motivation into a simple prediction like that,
which, while I haven't researched it, seems on the face of it reasonable enough.

Every media outlet is bias to one degree on another. The purpose of the post was to comment on the laughable figure of 300,000 people dying within the next 25 years because of global warming. I find that figure to be misleading and hilarious at best.

BK, how many people do you know that have been killed due to 'global warming'. Do they keep stats somewhere that I don't know about?

The Post is more than biased. I'd use it as catbox liner but my cat refuses to put her ass anywhere near it.

As I said I haven't researched it, but understanding that heat causes weather and more heat means more energetic weather is grade school science. No one with half a brain disputes that the earth is getting warmer, there is not one bit of observation data that I know of that counters the reams of observational data showing temperature rises.

It simply stands to reason that we will see more violent weather that will kill more people. More cases of drought that will kill more people etc, etc.
I have no idea how they quantified things, but it again doesn't seem out of line. In fact it seems smaller than I would have initially guessed.

Once again the only quasi-open issue with respect to global warming is how much of it is man made.

No doubt, the World is getting warmer. Just part of a trend that the World goes through IMHO

Are these weather events just part of normal climatic changes or part of <human> global warming? No one really knows, yet Gore and Company merely state it as fact that <human> global warming will kill 300,000 people and rid the World of the north pole.

BK, you stated that you think 300,000 is relatively small compared to one you thought of... what number do you think is more accurate and what are you basing it on? Also, when you say 'global warming' are you merely stating that humans are the sole perpitrators of such a trend or that this warming is something out of our control or you just don't know what it is?

[XtremeJibber2001]

I could guess how they estimate 300,000 but it would be purely conjecture - increased intensity of storms, increased drought in some areas, spread of tropical diseases, etc.

O, sure, every weather event is *human caused* global warming.

- r*in (floods) in VT last month ... *human caused* global warming
- 700" of snow in Tahoe ... *human caused* global warming
- Drought in PA this year ... *human caused* global warming
- Atlantic Ocean was 60F last week ... *human caused* global warming
- It was sunny 5 extra days last year ... *human caused* global warming
- Barometric pressure was lower then average at Bubba's abode today ... *human caused* global warming

What can't you blame on ... *human caused* global warming

[BigKahuna13]

What does Sager have to do with Gore's statement? It's Gore who said that "Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years - to 300,000 people a year" .... need a screen shot from his website? Maybe you want to borrow my glasses?

First, the NY Post is a right wing rag. Second, it's writers are barely literate, let alone able to put together a coherent thought. Fox News is
probably modelled on the Post.

How can you read a political motivation into a simple prediction like that,
which, while I haven't researched it, seems on the face of it reasonable enough.

Every media outlet is bias to one degree on another. The purpose of the post was to comment on the laughable figure of 300,000 people dying within the next 25 years because of global warming. I find that figure to be misleading and hilarious at best.

BK, how many people do you know that have been killed due to 'global warming'. Do they keep stats somewhere that I don't know about?

The Post is more than biased. I'd use it as catbox liner but my cat refuses to put her ass anywhere near it.

As I said I haven't researched it, but understanding that heat causes weather and more heat means more energetic weather is grade school science. No one with half a brain disputes that the earth is getting warmer, there is not one bit of observation data that I know of that counters the reams of observational data showing temperature rises.

It simply stands to reason that we will see more violent weather that will kill more people. More cases of drought that will kill more people etc, etc.
I have no idea how they quantified things, but it again doesn't seem out of line. In fact it seems smaller than I would have initially guessed.

Once again the only quasi-open issue with respect to global warming is how much of it is man made.

No doubt, the World is getting warmer.

Are these weather events just part of normal climatic changes or part of global warming? No one really knows, yet Gore and Company merely state as fact that global warming will kill 300,000 people and rid the world of the north pole.

BK, you stated that you think 300,000 is relatively small compared to one you think ... what number do you think is more accurate and what are you basing it on? Also, when you say 'global warming' are you merely stating that humans are the sole perpitrators of such a trend or that this warming is something out of our control or you just don't know what it is?

Man you really got to read what I wrote. I said

Once again the only quasi-open issue with respect to global warming is how much of it is man made.

Personally I think industrialization is responsible for a large portion (how large I don't know) of it - I base that on the observed increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution - but others disagree.


I have/had no number in mind. 300,000 deaths globally due to global warming just seems small.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Personally I think industrialization is responsible for a large portion (how large I don't know) of it - I base that on the observed increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution - but others disagree.

I have/had no number in mind. 300,000 deaths globally due to global warming just seems small.

Here is a good start ...

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

The whole issues is wishy-washy at past as you've partially stated.

[Bubba]

One of the things about the warming issue I don't hear anyone mention is the increased greenhouse gas emissions caused simply by the increase in population. We as humans all emit CO2 and take up more of the land mass thus reducing the number of CO2 absorbing trees. If we're measuring greenhouse gas increases since the industrial revolution, we also have to include population increases in the calculation. I'm sure this is being done; I just don't hear anyone mentioning this in all the debates over greenhouse gas reduction needs.

[Cityskier]

What does Sager have to do with Gore's statement? It's Gore who said that "Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years - to 300,000 people a year" .... need a screen shot from his website? Maybe you want to borrow my glasses?

I'll ignore the fact that you're a douche bag just long enough to ask you what evidence can you present to prove your point? I personally don't come here with any interest at all in your opinion. I come here to exchange ideas, view other points of view, and engage in discussions regarding current events. Yes, it gets heated sometimes but at least the majority of people who find their way in here have a modicum of intelligence, experience, or education in their arsenal when forming an opinion.

You are nothing more than a waste of bandwidth.

[XtremeJibber2001]

What does Sager have to do with Gore's statement? It's Gore who said that "Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years - to 300,000 people a year" .... need a screen shot from his website? Maybe you want to borrow my glasses?

I'll ignore the fact that you're a douche bag just long enough to ask you what evidence can you present to prove your point? I personally don't come here with any interest at all in your opinion. I come here to exchange ideas, view other points of view, and engage in discussions regarding current events. Yes, it gets heated sometimes but at least the majority of people who find their way in here have a modicum of intelligence, experience, or education in their arsenal when forming an opinion.

You are nothing more than a waste of bandwidth.

I'll ignore the fact that you use name calling in your post(s) like some childish adolescent.

Do I have evidence to prove my point, yes I do.

Gore states that deaths will double to 300,000 in 25 years. What's the original number that's doubling? How many deaths today are attributed to *human caused* global warming?

I don't need facts to disprove Gore's *statement of facts*, all I need to do is attempt to prove the original fact and it fails miserably.

If I'm a waste of bandwidth, don't post, it's simple.

[2knees]

Do I have evidence to prove my point, yes I do.

what is your point? That gore shouldnt be talking about the environment? That there is no evidence to suggest that the polar ice caps are melting at a rate faster then we originally predicted? That the loss of said ice caps, the increase in temps and the resulting meteorlogical phenomenon may very well cause more people to die from weather related issues then do currently. Or are you simply trying to show that democrats like to mouth off about the environment while not actually doing anything to change the situation?

Oh and i think city was suggesting that since you are a waste of bandwith, maybe you should stop posting, not him. You seem to have gotten confused on that too.