Global Warming

February 21, 2010

PhotobucketTomorrow morning, I need to rush home from dropping my daughter off at school to be on a live radio broadcast, in which I’ll be speaking on the imperative to move to clean energy. Also featured on the program is a representative of the National Resources Defense Council. I interviewed someone from the NRDC for my book on renewables, so I’m fairly familiar with the cut of their jib. You have to like people who stand up and do the right thing under incredible pressure to yield.

In preparing for this live discussion, I’d like to try to concentrate on the basics; I’d like to make this is simple and as black and white as possible. But that’s not easy. The more I learn about this the more complicated I understand it to be. There is a lot to discuss about the subject of global warming alone, for instance. But discussions on the subject are usually 10 parts politics for every one part honest, objective science. I could prove that 2 and 2 are 5, using logic that I find in a lot of places.

The fact is that almost everything you read was written for a reason – and that reason is very seldom to inform you of the complete unvarnished truth. We’ve all come across the idea that global warming is a hoax. There is a paper being circulated now that takes this a step further, alleging that the hoax is aimed at creating enough fear in people that they will accept increased infringements in their liberties and ultimately a unified and tyrannical world government.

Personally, I’m a bit skeptical. I have to ask — in my mind, who has more credibility: thousands of research scientists – many of whom I’ve met and come to know as trusted friends — or a guy writing a paper with outrageous ideas and essentially no supporting evidence? Hmmm.

By Craig Shields | Posted in Renewables - Politics | Tagged | Comment (1)

Global Warming and the “Preponderance of the Evidence”

January 5, 2010

Passionate global warming skeptic Alex C. writes:

Scientific evidence, facts, truth, and “global warming” is NOT a democratic activity where whoever has the most votes wins … There is only one truth at it is not up to a vote. When so much politics, money, and power are involved it is clear that left wing socialists or environmenalist extremists could care less about facts. It is becoming clear that man made CO2 has not caused global warming…Please avoid using majority rule to make decisions.

Again (and I swear this is true) my blogging software asked me to approve your comment — even though I’ve set it so as to let everything but the most obvious spam through uncensored. Apparently Wordpress seems to think you’re an extremist!  :)  Personally, I think you have your rights to your own opinions.

Having said that, let me tell this story. When I decided to enter the GW discussion a couple of years ago, I told a few friends about my concerns. “A 400 million year correlation between CO2 and global temperature doesn’t mean that CO2 increase causes temperature increase. What if temperature increase causes a CO2 increase? What if they’re both driven by a third parameter?” I asked.

My friends — each one — urged me to do my own investigation.

My response, which I would give again now, is simply this: I don’t have the hundreds of thousands of manhours to retrace all these scientists’ steps. I have to decide this for myself as I would if I were a judge hearing a civil case, i.e., trust in the veracity of the testimony of credible people, and base my decision (as I think you need to base yours) on the preponderance of the evidence.

What seems most credible here? That the vast majority of climatologists are leftists? That Marxist ideologies are shaping interpretation of enormous amounts of data in the halls of MIT, Cal Tech, and Scripps? Sorry, I don’t think so.

But you raise a good point. Will believing in the preponderance of the evidence in front of us always bring us the right answer? Of course not. It can fail us at any time, just as it did the people who believed the earth was flat 500 years ago.  But it’s the best that I — or anyone else — can do.

By Craig Shields | Posted in Renewables - Science | Tagged , , | Comments (0)

More on Global Warming

December 29, 2009

PhotobucketI asked global warming (GW) skeptic Jarrett Buys to explain the melting of the glaciers as evidenced by photos taken over the last century and the data behind ubiquitous graphs like this one. Excerpts from his response include:

Man just isn’t that causative!

Of course there is more melting of glaciers globally; we are at the end of the interglacial period, which always shows the most amount of glacial melt – it’s been melting for 10 thousand years! Also, the pattern shows we always have a slight warm spike at the end of the cycle, just before we plummet into the next glacial period, which might just account for the 1/2 degree f. Increase since 1988.

I can’t comment on this graph. I would imagine this is part of the ipcc’s climate modeling system based on their computer models that “prove” them right.

I realize critics of “the other side” (such as you mention in your blog) already have a “pat” answer for the explanations of such data being provided; however, that does not automatically mean the data is false, it just means that your side has a predetermined answer for all data that does not agree with your theory.

Thanks for this, Jarrett.

You bring up good points about the motive for junk science: both sides have something to gain by convincing lawmakers of the correctness of their positions. But personally, I find this irrelevant because, from my perspective, evaluating the correctness of the anthropogenic GW theory is impossible due to the enormous scale of time and the number of variables. I grant that it really IS possible that there actually isn’t a problem, or, if there is, that mankind has identically zero cause in it.

However, while I can’t prove the theory one way or the other, I think any fairminded individual would have to concede that it’s quite possibly true — due to the preponderance of top thinkers whose collective research reaches this identical conclusion. Btw, unlike you, I attribute to man more than enough cause to ruin this planet — in any of a dozen different ways. I guess my position is that there is a reasonable probability associated with anthropogenic GW, and that this alone is enough to militate action — especially when we need to get rid of fossil fuels for 3 – 4 other reasons that have nothing to do with GW at all.

By Craig Shields | Posted in Renewables - Science | Tagged , | Comments (0)

Global Warming – Hot Topic for Cocktail Parties

December 25, 2009

PhotobucketMerry Christmas everyone!

Had a great time at a friend’s “Stop By For a Glass of Chrismas Cheer” party last night; it was an opportunity to meet many wonderful people.  It’s always amusing to get people’s reactions when I’m asked what I do in life.  In almost all cases, people instantly relate to it, perhaps insofar as it touches almost everyone’s political beliefs: global warming is a leftist scam, it’s the apocalypse caused by unbridled capitalism and greed — and everything in between. “I’m just a reporter,” I assure them.

In any case, I was delighted that one guy said, “Oh I have to talk to you about investments.”  When I asked him what he meant, he explained that many people are shut out from investing in the migration to renewables, since so many cutting-edge clean energy companies are private.  I told him I would speak with some of my investment banker/broker-dealer friends about establishing a private placement memorandum to raise money for a group of carefully chosen private companies in need of capital across a range of relevant technologies. 

It’s amazing the ideas you come across with a cup of hot mulled wine in your hand.

By Craig Shields | Posted in Renewables - Business | Tagged , , , | Comments (0)

More on the Global Warming “Debate”

December 3, 2009

PhotobucketA couple other thoughts on the global warming (GW) “debate.” In the interview that I conducted with eminent physicist Bruce Allen for my book on renewables, he pointed out that there are numerous climatologists who do not support the anthropogenic GW theory but who have not published their ideas for fear of ridicule or reprisal. He claims that once this is taken into account, there is a healthy number (though still a minority, he admits) of skeptics in the ranks of serious scientists.

For the record, Bruce isn’t claiming that GW doesn’t exist; his real beef is that scientists who don’t toe the line on this subject are being suppressed, i.e., that politics is superceding science. This isn’t the first time I’ve heard this, and if it’s true, of course I agree that this is unacceptable. Again, we seem to see simple corruption at work. Just like the oil companies have bought favoritism for fossil fuels, anyone can see that there is the potential for corruption here. No GW problem = no money to fix it.

Having said all this, my response is unchanged from my earlier post on the subject:

The only real issue is the level of certainty with which accept the theory. Are we “100% sure” or “sure beyond a reasonable doubt” that human activity is causing GW? Perhaps not. But do we really need to be? If the majority of the oncologists examining me told me that I had early stage cancer and a prompt operation would save my life—even if a minority weren’t sure—I’d have the operation every day of the week.

By Craig Shields | Posted in Renewables - Science | Tagged , , | Comments (19)

Global Warming “Debate”

December 1, 2009

PhotobucketI thought I’d write a quick post on the “debate” over global warming.  Perhaps the first thing to note here is that there really are very few informed people actually debating.  Of scientists covering the issue who publish peer-reviewed papers, there are very few who question the concept that human activity is raising the concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, which have caused — and will continue to cause — a rise in the temperature at the earth’s surface. I’ve met many of these people personally, e.g., Dr. Ramanathan at Scripps, and they’re enormously convincing.

Out of fairness, here’s a rare dissenter.

I point out three things:

1) As discussed here, the oil companies have spent a fortune creating doubt in the public’s mind about the validity of concern for global warming.  With a brazen lack of regard for the truth and a callous indifference to your health and safety that rivals that of the tobacco companies, they’ve funded sham “research” companies whose sole purpose is to build a cloud of uncertainly regarding global warming.  There’s no debate about that.

Now is it possible that, again out of fairness, those who stand to profit from global warming mitigation are campaigning in the opposite direction? I suppose so.

2) But even if the global warming hypothesis turns out to be incorrect, no one is saying that it isn’t likely. Is it sane to risk inaction that could result in complete ecological, social, and economic catastrophe?

Here is a video that I think everyone on this planet should watch, that offers cogent reasoning that mankind should take action to deal with the possibility that most climatologists are correct in their theories.

3) Again, even if the global warming hypothesis turns out to be incorrect, even fewer scientists doubt that increased CO2 levels are lowering the pH of the oceans, causing long-term damage to the fragile ecosystems therein.

I would think that this would make it intensely difficult to argue against controlling carbon emissions. But hey, I’ve seen incredible behavior from people where money is concerned before. Why should I think it will suddenly cease now?

“The debate” continues here.

By Craig Shields | Posted in Renewables - Science | Tagged , , , , | Comments (19)

2GreenEnergy Headed for Scripps

November 13, 2009

PhotobucketI must say that the process of interviewing subject-matter experts for my book on renewables is perfect for my temperment as a writer. I don’t aspire to be an authority on any one subject within the framework of renewable energy, but I certainly aspire to grasp fully the fundamental issues at stake in each, and to be able to learn from a good, engaging conversation. Thus it is with joy in my heart that I’ll be headed for the Scripps Institution of Oceanography next week for my interview with Dr. Veerabhadran Ramanathan. I’ll be speaking with a man, affectionately known as “Ram,” who is perhaps the most well-respected scientist on the subject of global climate change. In fact, his assistant told me that he is credited with discovering the phenomenon, correctly predicting in the early 1970s that there would be a measurable increase in the planet’s temperature by 1980. Unless something unforeseen takes place, the full transcript of the interview will occupy an important chapter.

In any case, the process of preparing for these interviews forces me to read and digest short but pithy articles like this one, and to familiarize myself with the nomenclature associated with the key issues. For instance, we all recall from Al Gore’s movie the cooling phenomenon of certain pollutants, which, when they are removed from the atmosphere, will actually increase global warming. This is known as AMGW, or aerosol mask global warming. Of course, there are dozens of such concepts into which to sink one’s teeth. I would say this would be unbridled fun, if it weren’t for the tragic circumstances and the severity of the consequences.

By Craig Shields | Posted in Renewables - Science | Tagged , , , | Comments (0)