Mtpolitics has been exercised, here and here, about the composition of the Montana Climate Change Advisory Committee. Craig argues that committee members were tilted toward accepting the notion of human-caused climate change and that the Montana media have failed to adequately document this fact.
But he seems to be missing an important point. The committee wasn't appointed to look into the question of whether humans cause global warming. As the governor's letter calling for creation of the committee made clear, the purpose of the committee was to "identify ways in which we can reduce our collective greenhouse gas emissions while saving money, conserving energy and promoting our economy."
The governor's argument is that cutting greenhouse gases is good business. That may be arguable, but an advisory committee probably isn't the place to have that argument. How having someone like, say, Dan McGee serving on the committee would help achieve its goals is beyond me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Denying that humans add to global warming seems to be a wingnut issue this year. They're saying that they won't go along with it. My state rep, mcgillvary has put it out in his first mailing of the season. What an idiot!
Maybe Mr. McGillvary is looking for some evidence beyond Mr. Gore's fully discredited dog and pony show. The Governor's approach reminds me of a bureaucrat's response many years ago to a highly controversial new governmental intrusion into our lives -- he told a dutiful board that they should not focus on "whether" they should do it, but "how" to do it -- and that that would make moot the stupid citizens who were so foolish as to believe in freedom. Actually he didn't say that last part, that was me. Now that the temperatures have started to decline, I think we not only need to get some evidence that humans can effect the climate, but also whether it isn't headed back in the other direction. It's not a "wingnut issue," it's a very valid question which deserves more than name calling, Mr. Rightmire, especially by anyone who likes modern conveniences (like heat) because that's what is on its way out if the federal energy cap is passed. But, oh well, it seems like we have lots of kool-aid to share.
Anonymous 1206,
I've read some criticism of Al Gore and his film, but I have never seen any evidence that it has been "fully discredited." Do you have any?
Real scientists at www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/ reviewed gore's movie and got 245 responses. In summary the criticisms were minor. McGillvary and other Montana Republicans could find Republicans in other states who have a vastly different view. To name a few: Pat Robertson for one, Rick Warren (Author: The Purpose Driven Life), and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, says "the debate is over." Humans cause global warming. He might also try listening to the retiring President of Shell Oil who agrees. See Charlie rose interview with John Hofmeister on March 25, 2008
www.huffingtonpost.com/charlie-rose/my-conversation-with-john_b_93632.html
Boys,Boys, cool down. Even if we as humans could do something, the true scientists testify that it would take a thousands years to actually show any effects upon the climate. Rather than bad mouthing the US (as USual) why not get after China and India whose "carbon foot print" is greater than ours. As far as any good articles defining the "other side" I would refer you to Lowell Ponte and Marc Morano who have researched the "facts?" of Gore's book. Gregory Benford also has some sensible insights. Richard Lindsen, a professor at MIT declares that the environmental groups have gone off the deep end. Like Einstein said, the difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limitations. Peace
in the 1970"s these same guys predicted an ice age coming...they need to mmake up their minds: ice age or global warming....lets taike a vote
Post a Comment