More on the Global Warming "Debate"
A 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.
The move to renewable clean sources of energy makes sense whether a person believes in the anthropogenic GW theory or not. Cap and trade legislation is not necessary or desirable to obtain a clean energy future.
The government should be giving tax incentives for nuclear, gas, wind, tidal, geothermal projects. That is all that it takes to move us away from the dirtier and geopolitically hazzardous sources of energy.
The free market with just a nudge from governments around the world will make a huge difference and not leave us stuck argueing about the solar cycle vs. anthropogenic warming. jmo Larry (retired chemistry and physics teacher)
Well stated, Larry. We can argue for ours on scientific / non-scientific issues supporting / decrying GW but the bottom line is – polluted environments are man-made and can be avoided. We all should be doing something about it – recycling, cleaning the environment and focusing on green solutions.
I fully agree
Six months ago, I would have had serious doubts about nuclear power. However, after spending considerably time studying nuclear power, I fully believe that it is the only solution, especially in India and China where the population density is so high that solar and wind power couldn’t begin to provide for their needs. Solar and wind probably have their place, but not as the primary source of power in a large country.
I also learned that thorium can be used instead of uranium in nuclear reactors; it has may advantages, and I see that as the way to go. Do a google search on “thorium reactors” and you will find plenty of information.
‘Splain this, Lucy
How could a balanced system (like the Earth over the previous millenia) stay IN balance with a sudden influx of energy (fossil fuel output over the past century)? It cannot.
Any question that the balance will be affected is preposterous. The only question is.. How much? The only answer can be… Over time, too much.
How much time?
Does it matter?
Why wait?
Reply to Hal Slater
The earth can remain in dynamic balance with a large input of CO2 because it has happened repeatedly over many thousands of years. Volcanic eruptions spew more CO2 than all human sources combined and they do it in big blow-offs. Think about the Gia hypothesis or LeChatelier’s principle.
L
For believers in man made GW: agreed cut emmissions now
For believers in GW but not man made: Lets not disturb an already volatile climate with more known green house gases, the argument is even more persuasive: cut emmissions now
For Ross
I agree that emmissions of CO2 can be cut and be supported by those who do not believe the antropogenic GW modeling. CO2 will be cut as an incidental consequence of going to nuclear, wind, solar etc. This will happen without cap and trade. IMO, the Dems will be abandoning Al Gore’s attempt to enrich himself at the expense of the world economy. Cap and
Trade forces industry to do illogical things. Simple incentives to do the right thing is much more effective and nonintrusive in the operation of business. L
The global warming finding has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with preferences, beliefs, or feelings. And it is abject nonsense to claim, without any supporting evidence, that there is no anthropogenic factor in the present warming. One need only to look at the time graph of the atmospheric carbon index readings. It is currently at 390 ppm. In 1950 it was 310 ppm. You can see how it rose sharply after 1950, which coincides with the widespread distribution of automobiles, and the building and operation of coal fired electricity generators. Does any sane and sober person need more evidence of the anthropogenic effect? And at 390 ppm, raising at the rate of 2 ppm per annum, the antarctic and Greenland glaciers will melt in 40-50 years, raising the sea level over 165 feet. In 25 years, barring a massive, worldwide effort to curt fossil fuel oxidation drastically, and to reforest extensively, the sea level will raise about 25 feet. That alone will cause the relocation of a majority of the world’s population, and cause the collapse of most of the worlds states. And this will happen whether you believe it or not, whether you pray daily or never, and whether you like chocolate ice cream or not. Of course this can be avoided if there is a massive, worldwide effort to curt fossil fuel oxidation drastically, and to reforest extensively. But will this happen? I don’t think so.
Jacob, do you understand the difference between correlation and cause and effect?
CO2 levels have increased and parallel part of the climatic change record BUT the correlation is not perfect since their were some high CO2 levels long before industrialization and there was a mini iceage. If a correlation is not consistent, then it is hard to use it to claim causality.
Also, adding a teacup of water to the ocean does not increase its depth. The same arguement applies to adding a bit (less than 1%) to natural global CO2 production. L
CO2 is a problem and a huge one, but it doesn’t compare with chemical pollution. From 1973 to 1999 childhood cancers increased 26 percent. Acute childhood lymhcytic cancer is up 61 percent, brain cancer up 50 percent and bone cancer is up 39 percent. this doesnot include the problems caused by the chemicals leaching into food and water from containers causing dramatically reduced numbers of male babies along with reproductive issues.
tell the good doctor to collect all of his theories put them in an 8 cylinder SUV
and drive off the nearest cliff
I liked your other article better, Craig.
“The majority who enter the debate are ill-informed” or some such paraphrase.
As is illustrated in the comments.
APW has been turned into the topic to debate, but the real debate is whether humans can continue to behave like they have in the past as we head into the future.
So far, there isn’t much evidence supporting unbridled consumption as a sustainable way of living.
“Tax incentives…blah blah blah” Anything that suggests we can consume (re:’build’) our way out of overconsumption is simply denial of the reality of human behavior and unlimited consumption in a finite world.
Consuming the stability of the climate isn’t an answer to anything.
Check your premises, Mr. Lemmert. The levels of CO2 have not been this high since ‘Snowball Earth’ and ‘Tropical Antarctica’.
The problem of warming isn’t just CO2: the CO2 simply acts as a trigger: a ‘light switch’ if you will, which causes instabilities in other sources of greenhouse gases, as well as changing weather patterns which cause desertification, thus releasing even more CO2.
Volcanic CO2 is usually released along with the means (calcium) to absorb that CO2, and often cures itself.
Human use of fossil fuels is turning millions of years of forests and algae action into a century of convenient heat and trips to the mall.
Dan, while we have irreconcilable differences regarding the definitive causes of global warming, we can agree that over consumption of resources can not be a good thing. The trips to the mall to buy more junk that is produced from petroleum and transported half way around the world makes no sense at all.
I did not make a claim that we could produce or consume our way out of the present problem. I do believe however that incentives to build more eco friendly infrastructure is a wise investment for the future. A carbon tax just wrecks the global economy. A carrot is better than a stick. L
GW or not GW, it is about the topsoil, about erosion and the balance of humus and salts in the soil. If these things are out of balance, plant absorption of CO2 and production of O2 are out of balance. Any GW will have a more dramatic effect if the unbalanced state of the natural world loses its resilience to change. We live on a fragile film sustaining life as we know it. Will we “pop” the bubble pre maturely or nurture it to last a bit longer? The choice is up to us humans not the butterflies and the grass, we are at the top of the food chain. Recall the saying, “if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem” ? I can’t believe I am the only one who has notice the arial shots of humankinds macro effect on the planet similar to the micro images of cancer strangling the life out of it host? Of course we are causing GW! Screw the percentage! What are we giving back??
if your uncertain about the human effect on our planet ,just calculate how many cars,trucks and so on are running at any given time ,average out the size of the exhaust pipes ,add them together and picture that as one large pipe spewing toxins into our enviroment,how large would it be?
Unlike peak oil and balance of trade discussions, global warming is taking on the aspect of a religious fervor. As such, having an opinion comes with potential health hazards. That is unfortunate, but nonetheless reality.
I was recently made aware, in one of the newsletters I receive, that Doug Casey weighed in with what I think of as the reasonable uncertainty argument. It was quite long, but the nucleus is that there have been considerable swings in temperature and atmospheric composition over geologic time. As others have mentioned in this venue, the earth is on a long term (millions of years) cooling trend. As has also been mentioned, there are the occasional events that are of such magnitude that they change global weather and temperature. The uncertainty argument takes all of this together and challenges one to be certain beyond reasonable doubt that we are not simply in a confluence of natural conditions, i.e. non-anthropogenic.
I would opine that we need to understand within ourselves whether or not this topic is best weighed in the context of reasonable doubt.
Google Casey for more background, but I reference him due primarily to the fact that all engagement with global warming will require a synergy with the financial community. I’m sure there are many who would wish otherwise, but our reality in the USA is that nothing will happen in which the free market people do not at least grudgingly acquiesce. He’s simply one bellwether among many.
Craig,
Your objectiveness and logic are non existent. Scientific evidence, facts, truth, and “global warming” is NOT a democratic activity where whoever has the most votes wins. Thousands of years ago few men who gathered facts and claimed the world was not flat or claimed the earth was not then center of the universe were killed or sent to jail! Also…less scientific doctors used to drain one’s blood to help cure them….today the health and nutrition field is far from exact and perhaps many minority doctor opinions or directions may in fact be better. Most cancers we do not know root cause.
There is only one truth at it is not up to a vote. Gather all the data you can and make up your own mind using your own brain. When so much politics, money, and power are involved it is clear that left wing socialists or enviornmental extremists could care less about facts. The truth appears to be the earth is cooling. Also it appears that CO2 changes due to human are irrelevant to any climate changes and to human health.
As I noted before…the GW facts are clearer now…and Climate-gate reveals the scam….see just one article of many that exposes the truth…link here: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
It is becoming clear that man made CO2 has not caused global warming…in fact the earth has been cooling for the last decade…the dumb left scientists were using urban city temperature readings where buildings and concrete act as a heat sink so in fact that are warmer but not due to CO2. Even the CBC understands it…see the video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295#
Our focus should NOT be on global warming debate…but instead over cleaning up dirty air over mega cities…this is not due to CO2….but other chemicals like NOX…the big issues are in emerging markets like China and India. The key issue is these governments are not democratic and free like the USA so it is much harder for the public to influence change to clean up their air. Such controlling governments don’t care about their people.
Please avoid using majority rule to make decisions. You can ignore the facts and truth, but it will not change them. We need more men of integrity who can at least debate with facts rather than scare tactics or how many are on each side. The general public are also not buying it anymore…new public opinion polls now shows a major swing against this largest scientific-political scam in the world’s history.
The truth is that the free countries like the USA and free market capitalism will maximize propsperity AND provide the best technology to reduce or eliminate harmful pollutants. True enviornmentalists who want clean air and water should focus on real science and and technology and economical solutions and exit the political control & corruption arena.
Thank God the world is waking up & the corrupt ignorant scentists and politicians are going down!
Climatologists being suppressed! Give me a break! That is more conservative nonsense. For years people proposing GW were suppressed and ridiculed and the suppressors and ridiculers are claiming the same. The difference is they can’t produce and proof, just innuendo and ‘wouldn’t it be great for our side if it were true’ speculations.
GW is real. We are causing it. Get over it and get on with the solutions.
While we’re at it, let’s talk about evolution and really waste what little time we have left to avert disaster.
The climate has warmed and cooled in the past and will in the future. The TRUTH is that the globe is NOT warming at this time. Look at the very latest scientific data. The UN “scientific” committee itself recently shared that there is no statistically significant warming in the past 15 years!! Why do we IGNORE facts??? It is also clear that very reputable scientists disagree on the facts and cause-effect. A big part of the issue is ground based temperature measurements in large urban cities are in fact warmer due to the heat sink effect of all the concrete and buildings. You can just look at your daily weather reports to see this. This provides a false perception that the globe is warming. The hockey stick simulation forecast is based on false assumptions. There is no clear consensus. Before we try to scare the world public into environmental extremism and costly controls we need to settle the science. With the email scams it is clear that the left-wing tree hugging ideologues have hurt their credibility and they have clearly tried to hide FACTS and TRUTH just to help persuade their ideological paradigm. It is a sad state of affairs when intelligent people cannot be objective. I encourage any reader to go to the following web site to learn more: http://www.epalawsuit.com/why-a-lawsuit/
This link includes 10 key facts and myths about Global Warming. I encourage all people of the planet to study and LEARN all the facts BEFORE making a judgment on policy and controls over CO2. Imaging the amount of $$ we could put into other clean energy technologies rather than be wasted in on CO2 controls. May the TRUTH set us free from false controls and may we spend out time and resources on clean energy technologies that will make a difference to our world….like nuclear power, low cost solar cells, low cost wind turbines, low cost hyrdrogen generation, low cost batteries, etc.