Most Dangerous? GW Bush or H Clinton et al ...

[LongQ]

Time for another GW thread folks - Global Warming in this case - the phrase seems to be making a comeback.

Try this item for some interesting views of the world of the north.


http://www.co2science.org/scripts/Template/MainPage.jsp?Page=BrowseCatalogEnlarged&sProductCode=v8n34edit

If that looks a little too much here's a synopsis.





"U.S. Senators John McCain and Hillary Clinton, together with Senators Susan Collins and Lindsey Graham, recently completed a tour of parts of Alaska and Canada [i]"to see firsthand the effects of global warming," [/i]which is how one reporter described the purpose of their highly-publicized junket. So what did they discover that led McCain to state, as reported by Associated Press Writer Dan Joling, that the trip was [b]"valuable for the accumulation of evidence,"[/b] specifically, evidence that could be used to support the McCain-Liebermann bill that would limit anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions?
Among the items cited by Joling were [b]"anecdotes from Alaskans and residents of the Yukon." [/b] As elucidated by Senator Graham, according to Joling,[b] "if you can go to the native people and listen to their stories and walk away with any doubt that something's going on, I just think you're not listening," or as McCain is reported to have said, "anyone doubting the effects of human activity on global climate change should talk to the people it affects in Alaska and the Yukon."[/b]

Well, of course, "something's going on," but the important questions are What? and Why? McCain and Clinton say that the what is unprecedented global warming and that the why is because of anthropogenic CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. [b]To our way of thinking, however, real-world data far outrank anecdotes and stories when it comes to answering these key questions; and when the former are employed, some vastly different answers are obtained.[/b]

<snip>

Hence, it was only to be expected that local residents of the planet's north polar region would regale him and his associates with tales of dwindling sea ice, coastal erosion, melting permafrost and the northward spread of spruce beetles. And it was those anecdotes and stories, according to one press report, that [b]"confirmed his belief that humans are contributing to global warming."[/b]

But what does science have to say about the issue?

<snip lots of detailed stuff about scientific analysis that gets in the way of a good story ..>



Interestingly, these observations lead us to actually agree with some of Senator Clinton's statements on the subject, such as [b]"I don't think there is any doubt left for anyone who actually looks at the science," [/b]which she was quoted by Joling as saying, as well as [b]"the science is overwhelming."[/b] [b][i]Unfortunately, what she and Senator McCain call science is something radically different from what we call science.[/i][/b] Also, we find we agree with Clinton when she says that [b]some people "just keep saying something no matter how untrue and unfactual it might be, over and over and over again, and try to drive the politics to meet [their] ideological or commercial agenda." [/b] [i]However, we feel that this astute observation better fits her and Senator McCain than the people to whom she directs it.[/i] Surely you must too, if you put more credence in real-world data than in anecdotes and stories. "


Worrying as the man and his supporters so often are, GWB seems to me to be slightly the lesser of two evils if his opposition see science as some numbers they believe are confirmed by anecdotes.

Though both sides seem to be fuelled more by faiths than fact at least one of the faiths recognises itself for what it is. The more recent seems to think it is a secular assessment of unimpeachable scientific standing - which if course it cannot be since science does not claim to be so absolute. Especially not on the basis of anecdotes.