That's funny. I remember reading original scientific reports (years ago) pointing at GW and then the "rewritten for the Administration" versions that pointed toward the exact opposite. It was supposed to show why the US is failing at science on all levels compared to other countries. At the time I rolled my eyes, because it reminded me of people taking what suits their needs from the BigBook and discarding or reinterpreting the rest. That's what the Bushes did with everything science their entire time in office. If Congress is actually trying, then you'd think the scientific community would at least give them a chance to prove they aren't going to twist their words around anymore.godix wrote:Once Congress seriously took a crack at passing laws about it (and failing spectacularly), serious opposition to it all kicked in. It probably doesn't help that climatologist have been absolute morons recently. The leaked emails aren't as bad as claimed, but their reaction to it is a real publicity problem. When scientists defend keeping data secret and even deleting data in response to Freedom of Information requests, people start wondering what's going on. Especially when a week later they announce that, surprise surprise, a large chunk of the data AGW theories are based on was accidentally deleted.
Carbon caps and the like are never going to pass in the US. I did read my magazines last year and the year before that and I remember how much money was put into saving the big car manufacturers who are the same ones who'd be hit hardest by eco-friendly laws. I got my republican newsletter a few months back and everything in there was talking about how the evil democrats were trying to take away our gas guzzlers and our right to the coal we all love and need. I laughed my head off. They were asking for money to support everything I'm against. They did mention the environment, and the Global Warming scam the democrats are using to take away our rights as Americans. I assumed it was just fear mongering and misinformation, the same thing each party does with every topic they disagree on. It did make me wish I could change parties without my mother bringing up the whole "your brother cancels out my vote, so you have to vote in my place" thing. I'm so not a republican. ;p
On a related note, scientists are generally bad at explaining anything to the masses. They can't even fight the "humans lived with dinosaurs and the earth is flat" theories without turning red in the face. It's not an issue up for debate, so they can't see the point in debating. Their opponents aren't going to be convinced by anything because they don't want to be. Engaging them at all just makes the masses think the issue *is* up for debate.
I don't think Global Warming is up for debate. You cut down forests, there's less plants eating up the carbon. More humans and artificial carbon producers (machines) + fewer forests = more carbon that isn't being recycled by nature. The growing excess has to be going somewhere and you know it is having an effect. We're not slowing down the clearcutting, planted trees don't grow fast enough to replace the lost ones, and we're not driving fewer cars because hello China, welcome to the age of mass polution.
Caps could make a dent if everyone accepted them - out of fear, out of pressure from parents who don't want to be scared of their grandchildren's future, out of greed (trade your unused points for money from those who want to polute more instead of less, great way to reduce emissions!), out of whatever motivation it takes to get people acting. But you're just slowing it down. There'll still be the increasing lack of green and the mass reproducing human+machine emissions.
[Now I'm wondering if that little old lady ringing things up at the Dollar Store was a Democrat. ;p ]
