Steve, just so I understand you: are you saying the USGS, the US Academy of Sciences, NASA, the IPCC etc are liars? Snake-oil salesmen? That's a pretty sweeping charge. Correct me if I didn't hear this correctly.
We had a Stanford biologist over for dinner the other night (we live in silicon valley and my husband we both have lots of connections with Stanford), who has published several peer papers on climate-change effects on agriculture in temperate zones. He seemed pretty persuasive to me. In fact, Stanford scientific faculty has done a lot of work in this area. Are the Stanford faculty all liars?
And yes, I'm quite aware that there is complaint in the EU over fuel surcharges. But that has nothing to do with the facts of GW itself - just the strategy and politics on how to deal with it. As I'm sure you know, European fuel costs are much higher than in the US, as are fuel taxes. Hence the revolt. But I've found very few Europeans or Asians doubt GW (although, of course, there are always exceptions).
Here's a recent EU poll that illustrates this some components of this:
iht.com
Lastly, you bring up the "golf carts and caves" thing. As I'm sure you know, that's a rhetorical straw man argument. What scientists advocate is to develop sustainable means of energy production and consumption. For example, there are a number of firms here in the valley working on genetically engineering microorganisms to create oil. And there is a huge amount of innovation in solar. Are you opposed? GW aside, do you enjoy sending your dollars to Muslim dictatorships every time you fill your car? |
