More on Global Warming: Some Balance

By January 29, 2006Energy, Global Warming

For those of you who saw the front page Washington Post article on the theory of global warming today, here’s a link to an earlier post that provides some more facts and a more balanced treatment of the issue. And here’s a link to our energy section, with lots of posts on this topic and others.

Thought you should see the other prevailing view.

Join the discussion 5 Comments

  • Gabe Rivas says:

    At my school I am recently doing a paper on global warming. In my research i have found many theories that state that the aerosol put off by some Industries and volcanoes reflects incoming U.V rays. So though there is more CO2 in the atmoshphere from human related activety there is also other things working against that increase. Is it not true that there is much compensation for everything that takes place. I think that we could re-plant some logged areas and stuff being that their is more CO2 to be used but i dont think global warming is all that realistic.

  • TokyoTom says:

    Evolution, gravity, special relativity, quatnum mechanics – they’re all just “theories” – why do manufacturers pay heed to them? Because they’re predictive and work. Same with the theories of thermodynamics that underly most manufacturing provesses and the form the basis of climate change “theory”. Granted, the climate system is complicated and results are not wholly linear, but so is what you guys do.

    So why does NAM continue to fog on climate change? Simply because you’d like to keep on imposing costs on the rest of the world and our future for free, and acknowledging there’s a problem means that costs will be involved. But if we care about actually solving problems instead of hoping they will just go away (is that really what you think about climate change – that it will just go away?), then we need to do something- and if that something is equitable and makes the release of greenhouse gases just a cost of doing business that everyone shares, then whose ox is gored, and how are American manufacturers disadvantaged?

    Why can’t you guys be a principled part of the solution, instead of perpetuating and exacerbating the problem? Why do you prefer to leave the moral high ground to enviros, many of whom have no clue about how the economy works?

    And why don’t my posts seem to make it up here?

    If anyone else wants to see discussion at a Republican blog, see the links posted here:

  • Pat Cleary says:

    Sorry to say, but at the end of the day, it’s still a theory. We posted a thing a while ago about one guy who thinks the globe is cooling. His, too, is a theory. He has data as well. Some 9500 years ago, there was actually a greater warming trend. No internal combustion engine that we’re aware of, not even a crude one.

    You don’t get much balance in the popular press out there. If you only read the mainstream media, you’d think global warming was a commandment. It’s not. It’s a theory.

  • r drummond says:

    Some balance. I suspect that your lobby group would not accept any research that supports the theory of Global Warming , just on principal.When Orlando becomes a costal city you might reconsider.

  • cameron barnett says:

    It is not a question of falling or rising temperatures per se. I think the phrase ‘Global Warming’ is used to describe the effects of man made, potentially dangerous ‘climate changing’ events. You are not telling me that the amount of waste materials used simply to manufacture a Car, let alone to keep it running throughout its life time are anything other than harmful to the environement! Wake up people, this is your wake up call!!! Population growth ‘X’ The demand for products which harm the envirnment = Armagedon. Look around on google if you don’t believe me, try to find out how many people there are currently on the earth, factor in the energy requirements for those people and now sit down and try to imagine the world in which we are leaving for or children to live in?