Is the debate on global warming a faux debate? It appears the skeptics have already lost - governments and corporations have begun taking steps - both political parties in the US are now firmly on board and acting on it. Even the Bush administration has signed pro-active legislation. It appears that the debate is over in the real world and only continues within the fantasy world of the internet and political hate radio.

Additional Details

7 months ago

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...

7 months ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_poli...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Energ...

The existence of AGW at this point is unquestionable. The only question is how bad will the consequences be, and how much will we do to avoid/mitigate them. 7% 4 Votes

Lindzen would laugh at those. 5% 3 Votes

Correct. Infact, the %26quot;debate%26quot; on whether global warming was real and if it was human in origin has been over for years. The Bush administration was never even a prt of it, in fact. In the %26quot;real world%26quot;--as you put it, that%26#039;s purely a scientific qusestion and was answered by scientists. Neither the politicians nor the %26quot;skeptics%26quot; ever had a say in the matter.

The debate ofver policy is jsut starting, however--it was delayed bfor years by the faux debate carried on by the skeptics and the censorship of the Bush regime. Now--when it comes to policy, there is--and should be--lively debate. Policy decisions always involve trade-offs, and the best mix of strategies isn%26#039;t jsut about science--its about competing interests and trying to be as fair as possible to everyone concerned--and that involves value judgements that can%26#039;t be quantified as science.

Fortunately, the biggest policy changes in this cas e--like shifting to high-fuel efficiency cars, mass transit, alternative enrgy--are all things that will either reduce consumer costs, promote economic and job growth, or both. About the only economic losers will be the fossil fuel industry--who are the ones who have been funding the campaign of false infrmation the %26quot;skeptics%26quot; call a debate. 2% 1 Vote

the climate is changing, no doubt about. opening debate on the issue, is very healthy for mankind! 2% 1 Vote

If the debate were truly over, you guys wouldn%26#039;t have to come in here every day to convince each other it is. 7% 4 Votes

The only debate between the two US parties should now be about the approach to take.


This being said now that there is a relative certainty that the US will comitt itself to clear emission reduction targets, China is on its to accept a firm emission cap too. So finally the end of the %26quot;blame game%26quot; is in sight.

---------------------
Oracle2w: it is interesting to see that on energy policies you put the conclusion before studies and debates. I do not think it is the way to proceed rationally.

And you are speaking about %26quot;reduction of carbon emissions%26quot;... but compared to what? absolute reductions? compared to business as usual?

Let me just explain you that before driving a car in the back gear, you first have to stop accelerating, start decelerating, stabilize and then you can put the back gear in. The same applies for the CO2 emissions.

BTW: What thou you say when wind generated power on several sites has a lower cost than nuclear? still go for the nuclear? (warning: message with political content). 15% 8 Votes

They are on board with words only. What is a serious piece of legislation that has been passed to address this issue.

Actions speak louder than words. 2% 1 Vote

the debate should not be over until every single last scientist is convinced by the evidence, this does not mean we should not act now, but we should always keep looking at the evidence, and not assume the thoery is correct 2% 1 Vote

To me, there is no debate...Global Warming is happening whether it is man made or a natural occurrence... 4% 2 Votes

It is a faux debate, because despite all the treaties and promises and meetings, carbon emissions are increasing worldwide.

No country, especially China, is trashing their economy by reducing carbon emissions.

So maybe if you took a step back, and focused on something other than beating down the infidels, you might see that nothing substantive has happened or is likely to happen to reduce carbon emissions.

However, don%26#039;t be surprised if nuclear power is the proposed solution. It is the only feasible off-the-shelf solution available now that is CO2 emission free. Both political parties, business, the military, etc. would be thrilled to cut dependence on mideast oil. And they have environmentalists backed into a corner over this.

If environmentalists don%26#039;t back nuclear, then maybe CO2 really wasn%26#039;t quite the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it.