SV: Humans causing Global warming > evidence increases

Jasper, thanks for your insights.

Republicans aren't necessarily at war with scientists
per se, they just don't like anyone who disagrees with
them. A typical human foible.

Politics is all about who gets to do what, with which
and to whom. IE, who gets to steer the damn boat. The
problem is, when the boat runs aground, who will get
blamed? i expect that will be any one but those who
actually couldn't see where they were going.

Our problem as dreamers and idealits, is to convince
those with the assets to make the future happen, to
see their self interest the same way we do, that the
survival of our support systems and our future wealth
would be facilitated by SPS and island colonies in
space.

I think what we need working with us are some of the
same spin doctors the politicians use. They seem to
have a solid grasp of how to steer people the way we
want them to go. Does anybody know anyone working in
such capacity?

Gary 7

> 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@...
> Emne: RE: [ssi_list] Humans causing Global warming >
> evidence increases
>
> Michael Crichton's book "State of Fear" blasts the
> theory that global
> warming is caused by CO2 emissions. This work of
> fiction is replete with
> scholarly references. All of us who are avowed SPS
> advocates must be aware
> of this. The book is a great read, and quite
> compelling. Anyone you may
> try to convince that the reason to go to SPS is
> greenhouse gasses, but who
> has read this book, will have evidence to refute
> you. Any of us who have an
> answer to Mr. Crichton's arguments should reply to
> all with
> counter-arguments.
>
> Peter
>
> _____
>
> [mailto:ssi_list@... On Behalf
> Of Charles F. Radley
> evidence increases
>
> Humans causing Global warming > evidence increases
>
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/11/24/global.warming.reut/index.>
>
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/11/24/global.warming.reut/index.