Re: Melanie Phillips, global warming, and a strange inconsistency

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

WARNING -- RANT COMING


If I read a statement, I do not first inquire about the author's politics 

before forming an opinion of that statement.  I don't know about the rest of 

Melanie Phillips' article -- I will try to read it -- but her statement about 

"a new stick with which to beat western capitalism, America, and 

globalization." is, it seems to me, right on.  I know some far-out 

conservatives who claim there is no science at all in the global warming 

area, which of course isn't so, and the Phillips' statement I saw does not 

say. She just says it was "suborned" -- used in the service of a lie.  


I deplore the fact that the whole global warming issue has become a 

liberal/conservative issue.  It's not, and shouldn't be.  If someone whose 

general social and political policies I disagree with makes a single 

statement I agree with, does that change my attitude toward social and 

political policies?  Of course not.  Questioning the "war on CO2" does not 

make me a socio-political conservative.  Even if I turn out to be wrong, it 

doesn't affect my politics.   Another example:  in my opinion, the Bush 

administration is on the right track regarding arsenic in water and on the 

wrong track regarding oil drilling in the ANWR.  Both opinions are based on 

my views of the issue, not on whether I voted for Bush (I didn't) or whether 

I am a member of Sierra Club (I am).


I am also disturbed that the nuclear industry is treating global warming as a 

divine gift to nukes.  I think we should be building nuclear power plants, 

and if  global warming creates a dilemma for the anti-nukes and makes nuclear 

power politically acceptable, so much the better, but nukes are not the 

Messiah.  It's true nuclear power doesn't produce CO2, but there are still a 

number of scientific questions that seem to need addressing (notice I don't 

say answering):


Are we really observing an anthropogenic climate change or part of the 

observed CO2 cycle that greatly predates homo sapiens?

If we limit CO2 production noticeably, even globally, will it make a 

difference?

What are the other social, economic, ecological, and physiological side 

effects of severe CO2 limitations?

If only the "developed" nations limit CO2 prdouction, will it make a 

difference?

If we limit CO2 production and do not limit waste heat production, will it 

make a difference?


Enough ranting.  Thanks for bearing with it.



Ruth


Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

ruthweiner@aol.com