Global Warming: political issue or not?

Al Gore likes to comment that Global Warming, its existence and the need to act on it, should not be a political issue. 

Protecting the earth from global warming is a mandatory part of following Jesus, former Vice President Al Gore said at a “Stewardship of the Earth” luncheon Jan. 31 2008 during the New Baptist Covenant Celebration in Atlanta.

“This is not a political issue,” Gore told a crowd of approximately 2,500 paying attendees. “It is a moral issue. It is an ethical issue. It is a spiritual issue.”

Yes, if things were working sensibly, were “Sound Science” not an operative framework of one of the political parties in the United States, the debate would be about “what to do about reality” rather than about trying to deny facts about “what is reality”.  And, this is one of the reasons why John McCain is viewed by so many as a breath of fresh air, because the Senator McFlip certainly can talk a good talk about Global Warming even though Senator McFlop simply doesn’t act on McFlip’s great words.  And, there is quite a strong contrast between Senators Obama, Clinton, and McCain’s positions on Global Warming with Obama’s/Clinton’s words and deeds far closer together than anything to be found with McFlip/McFlop (who risks being the McSame as Bush/Cheney in terms of political appointees and global warming issues).

A question before us (the US):  Is Global Warming a political issue for November or should McFlip’s tenuous hold on reality be used as justification for wiping the issue under the rug?  Sadly, some supporters of the Coal Subsidy Act seem to believe that a ‘benefit’ of pursuing the reckless Lieberman-Warner would be removing Global Warming from the political domain, that this is a “losing” political issue.  Just as with their heedless support for L-W, one has to ask WTF? 

In fact, just as in 2000, environmental issues are almost certainly an arena of Democratic Party advantage, as the Republican Party has been and is so out of touch with realities and the American people’s priorities.  And, John McCain … well, Senator McFlip/McFlop is vulnerable in this arena.  Who will he play to, the Republican base of deniers or to scientific reality?  And, he has consistently shown a two-faced approach, whether this is from a simple series of “McCain Moments” misunderstanding his own positions or from deliberate efforts to confuse and deceive.  Either way, when it comes to GW, John McCain is far from consistent and, if pressed in this arena, his inconsistencies will be ever more obvious to ever more people.

Not an arena of political advange?  WTF …

In any event, as per Joe Romm, the nation is best served with John McCain, a Republican who at least acknowledges Global Warming, serving in the Senate

4 responses to “Global Warming: political issue or not?

  1. When a ‘skeptic’ completes a study contract and reports the findings to ‘industry’ he/she gets paid.

    When a ‘warmer’ completes a study and reports the findings to government, if ominous concerns are declared the study gets extended, if the declaration is that there is no concern, the funding ends.

    If you are actually curious about findings funded by neither government nor industry see http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html

    Significant warming of planet earth ended in 1998. If it wasn’t for the 22 year period from 1976 to 1998 when the atmospheric carbon dioxide level and average global temperature happened to increase at the same time, the term ‘greenhouse gas’ would be virtually unknown and Kyoto and the rest of the Global Warming Mistake would never have happened. It is going to take a long time to un-brainwash much of the public and get some climatologists and the IPCC to abandon their self serving agenda.

  2. The latest news about climate change is so alarming (the right wing would say alarmist) as to make many people want to plant their aching heads in the sand. Some scientists using advanced computer models now argue that if we want to stop the Earth from warming, the amount of carbon we should be emitting is … none. None? As in, zero? As in, shutting down the global industrial economy? After all, global energy demand is expected to accelerate until at least 2020. Yet attempts even to slow the rate of increase of carbon emissions have paralyzed world politics for more than a decade.

  3. Dan,

    Your 1998 end of temperature increases is a false-flag argument, abusive of the data and you should know better. A nice piece, a guest post here, that deals with this: New GW denialists deceptive lie on Global Warming.

    1998 saw an exceptional El Niño event which contributed strongly to that record-breaking year. Research shows that an exceptional El Niño can warm global temperatures by about 0.2°C in a single year, affecting both the ocean surface and the land air temperatures. It is therefore not surprising that 1998 appears as a warm outlier. Had any recent years experienced such an El Niño, it is very likely that this record would have been broken. More recently, 2005 was also an unusually warm year, the second highest in the global record, but was not boosted by the El Niño conditions that augmented the warmth of 1998.

    Your arguments are misleading and abusive of data and facts.

    In addition, want to discuss the implications of CO2 for acidification of the oceans? The health impacts from burning fossil fuels? Or, do you simply want to go around the web dropping in truthiness that is, on inspection, absent truth?

  4. Alan,

    “Emitting zero”, perhaps not, but an overall climate friendly society, which means going carbon neutral or even negative: quite possibly if not probably.

    And, there are paths to foster achieving this via ‘win-win’ geoengineering that would improve the economy even while helping to turn the tide on CO2 levels.

    If you want to play comments about energy demand, only increasing to 2020? Don’t know what studies you are looking at, but I don’t see any studies that suggest anything less than growth in energy demand more or less indefinitely. Now, energy efficiency could change the curve of that growth, but “growth” in energy demand is more or less assumed. Now, what type of energy is being used is open to analysis/question/influence: fossil fuel; nuclear; solar; wind; hydro (of all sorts); etc …

    And, well, world politics have been paralyzed? Hmmm … not the planet that I live on …

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s