SV: Humans causing Global warming > evidence increases

I am living in a country where environmental questions in on the daily political agenda. The question on global warming have been discussed widely and is at the moment changed from a discussion based on scientific data turned into a discussion more and less based on political propaganda (on both poles in the debate) The right wing government have by political directive initiated a research study which have been asked to prove that global warming is a product of solar cycles, another institution (Institute for environmental evaluation) was created by the government to initiate a debate where economics and environments is directly linked, based on cost-benefit analyses. (Yes we get global warming, but we get cheaper cars, more employment too) The last model have more or less failed, as the institute was mostly producing high-level nonsense, which raised debate in the press, but at the same time emptied the debate from scientific understanding and thinking. The institute failed to produce more serious based evidence for its views and faced that its role was propagandistic and not scientific. The institute is now slowly phasing out its existence. (so no one realises that it could not give any new scientific based research contradicting the human factor in global warming) This is of course described in a very simplistic mode by me, but I think the debate on the global warming and the future for the environment on Earth is so influenced by political propaganda and commercial interests that it is very difficult to discuss these question it in a sober scientific way. For most of us here at this list, which I think is very visionary and see the Earth as a part of a larger system, we must realize that destroying the life support system is the most dangerous activity we can do. If we are influenced from outside factors influencing the life support system onboard Earth we must calculate this in our work to protect ourselves against destruction. We do have the technology to minimize CO2 emissions; we do have the technology to develop transportation and energy production which minimize the CO2 production, we do have the knowledge that ecological systems often is vulnerable, we all know that we are on a global scheme consuming more than we need, and that we like grasshoppers eat down the basis for our global survival. What I think is the most dangerous idea, which lies underneath the public environmental debate, is the idea that scientific based investigation and discussion of the problems can be overridden by political statements. That scientist and science is some kind of maniacs, who will destroy society if the is not suppressed. The republican war against scientists, which often gives unpleasant views, is very similar to the experience in my country. The market will solve the problem, not science. Maybe this a pessimist approach, but at least it is very similar to the view of the present Astronomer Royal in Britain : in 50 years we will destroy ourselves, if nothing is done. We live in the technical and scientific most advanced of our civilizations, but this knowledge is mostly ignored by the rulers of societal power. As long as we do not in a scientific way, analyse the problems to give a background for solutions, the idea that politics can override reality will stand (at least among those in power) And that of course is easier said, but done. But I think we as both intellectuals and academics do have the responsibility to continue discussing and working for a more scientific approach to solving the problems. Best regards jesper Fra: ssi_list@... [mailto:ssi_list@... P vegne af Peter Schubert
Sendt: 26. november 2005 14:35
Til: ssi_list@...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/11/24/global.warming.reut/index.
html

CO2 levels today are the highest for 650,000 years.

Solar power satellites are the obvious answer, but nobody is
discussing this in the mainstream....why?

The first obstacle to overcome is to convince the majority that
global warming is in fact caused by human CO2.

I have noticed that believers and unbelievers apppear to be
polarized.

The believers tend to be left wing environmentalists who are anti-
technology.

The unbelievers tend to be right wing pro-technology types.

The challenge is twofold:

1) Convince the believers that technology (SPS) can actually solve
the problem in a benign way, and

2) Convince the unbelievers that global warming is human driven, and
that there is an opportunity for technology to solve the global
problem.

Where do we start with this?

Best regards,

Charles R.

__________ NOD32 1.1305 (20051125) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com