Technologies exist today that can cut emissions of heat-trapping gases and make a real difference in the health of our planet. These changes often have other positive benefits such as improving air quality, saving consumers money, reducing our dependence on oil, and creating new jobs and business opportunities.
Our political and business leaders have a responsibility to help move us toward a cleaner energy future. Public investments should shift away from polluting fossil fuels to support for clean renewable energy such as wind and solar power, more fuel-efficient vehicles, and more energy-efficient technologies. People from all walks of life can play a role in slowing global warming by advocating for smarter government policies, better corporate practices, and informed consumer choices.
Add for nuclear power?
sounds like something added on by a staffer - that doesn't sound like stossel at all.
re: "People from all walks of life can play a role in slowing global warming by advocating for smarter government policies, better corporate practices, and informed consumer choices."
I'm all for a cleaner environment for the sake of people with asthma, for wildlife, etc. However, the whole point of this thread is that Global Warming is questionable.
Are things warmer than the were a few years ago? Yes. But... WHY? That's the real question. There is also global warming on Mars, Jupiter, and Titan. Did SUV's cause that as well? Are Martians using fossil fuels? Or are we looking at a solar event over which we have zero control? I personally think we're looking at a normal solar cycle. Things warm up and cool down when you look at the long term climate history. We STILL aren't anywhere near as warm as we were during the Medieval Warm Period!
One of the things that totally turned me off of the "global warming is caused by man" crowd is that they rely too much on Global Climate Models (GCM's). And that is a huge problem. It is nothing more than "gee whiz" hokum no more relevant than the infamous formula Crichton mentioned in the article two different people linked to above.
The problem with computer models is that they require PRECISE mathematics. You can't guess or fudge or hope that if you feed them emotionally satisfying or opinionated input they'll come up with a truthful answer. Computers are essentially very, very stupid, and will tell you what you tell them to tell you; nothing more, nothing less.
NASA's computer models for planetary orbits work because we know the mathematics of orbital paths, gravitational tides, etc etc etc. Mankind has been watching the planets since we were smart enough to look up and wonder about those strange "stars" that move. The mathematics of planetary movement are no longer a mystery, and haven't been for some time now. Thus the Voyager flew past Neptune precisely when it was supposed to and precisely where it was supposed to meet Neptune after a decades-long voyage. Unfortunately, entirely too many SCIENTISTS confuse NASA's precision mathematical modeling with other types of computer models.
The problem is that too many of the variables in climate modeling are unknowns. The programmer has to GUESS what the right values are, and as Crichton said above, guess=opinion. So what the GCM advocates are getting is prettied-up opinions no more valid than yours or mine. I'm not sure about climate, but I know what I'm talking about re: computers... I've been in the business, snuggled up to large mainframes since 1969. I know how and why they work, and they don't work when there are unknown variables in the equasion.
My considered professional opinion on using computers to predict climate change? It is not only not likely that GCM's are right, it is UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE for them to be right!