As if we haven’t had enough controversial subjects lately, I figured it was about time to look at some information you may not have seen elsewhere on the great global warming hoax.
1)A thorough review of recent science articles shows that there is no “consensus” that global warming is due to human activity, but there is a growing consensus that there will NOT be a worldwide calamity.
2)The list of reputable scientists raising serious problems with the Al Gore view of global warming is up to 27 in the National Post in Canada. Read the series here.
3)It turns out NASA’s numbers were wrong: it was hotter in the 1930s than now.
Twenty years from now, somebody will say, “remember when everybody was all freaked out about global warming?” And we will laugh.
I don’t think it’s a “hoax,” in the sense of “send this to ten of your friends and Bill Gates will give everyone $100!” or even loony (haha! loony!) “faked moon landing” hoax theorism. I do think it’s become one of those fads that, regardless of any underlying truth, is now more about what people say than what’s actually going on.
Thankfully, the planet will actually get warmer — or not — regardless of the stupidity to which we are subjected in daily society. I’d hate for the Pygmalion effect (I expected the Earth to get warmer, and it did!) to be valid in geology and meteorology the way it is in psychology and education.
(and counting scientists who’ve said one thing or another on this subject strikes me as about as useful as parading military veterans who are for or against a particular war.)
Sarah, I agree with you completely on the “hoax” thing. I was being deliberately provocative, just trying to stir things up a bit. “Fad” is a much better word.
The only reason I engaged in counting scientists is that you regularly hear Al Gore supporter saying stuff like: “all scientists agree the Earth will be destroyed in 20 years if we don’t do something now to cut CO2.” Well, as the attached clearly shows, all scientists DON’T agree on that, and in fact they are becoming less sure all the time because Al Gore has been predicting disaster since 1992, and it hasn’t happened.
Once people calm down and look at the issue more dispassionately, we can have a good discussion on this issue. Should people drive cars that get better gas mileage? Yes. Should the government force them to? No. Should we be concerned about the environment? Yes. Should we freak out about global warming and scare our kids into thinking the world will end tomorrow? No.
One of the issues that needs to be discussed dispassionately is how to continue economic growth without shutting down all industry.
Reasonable people can come to reasonable decisions. My target is the fearmongers and hysteria creators.
I feel most bad for the kids, who don’t have any way to tell that they are being fed over-hyped propaganda a lot of the time. I remember being a kid and being scared to death about the impending “killer bee” disaster. I thought by the time I was an adult we would be able to go outside anymore without risking our lives. Kids just don’t have the ability to keep these long-term disaster scenarios in proportion so it is shameful the way we feed them all the global warming stuff. If Al Gore believes we will all be burning up (or drowning, or freezing, or whatever it is global warming will lead to) in 15 years it is his own fault for being an idiot, but the third and forth graders shouldn’t have to be terrified.
It’s been 8 years since the treat of Y2K. Did anyone ever remember that one? I made a little money from Y2K. But to my friends I wouldn’t tell them to pay for anything.
If someone is making money, I mean a lot of cash, on something, look at them long and hard to see if they have your interests in mind.
If Al Gore will change his stance from Pro-Life to Pro-Choice with one conversation with Bill Clinton, then he just might change his stance on this thing.
What if the glaciers are an anomaly? A sign of global cooling? And now the globe, being an ever changing sphere is just balancing it all out.
What they should really say is. . . . Hey if you keep messing with this earth it will be ok but it just might shake ups off this “krazy thangâ€
Climate Change is the biggest farce (now Gore sees it) on this planet
Jacob J, that is exactly my point. Thanks! Wow, it’s nice when people understand the point you are trying to make!
I’d be somewhat careful on this. There have been earlier surveys and most scientists overwhelmingly support the idea. Admittedly this includes the 2004 study that this study purportedly criticizes (and uses the same data)
Right now though the paper in question isn’t available so it’s hard to be able to criticize it since we don’t know the criteria he is using. As soon as the paper is made public I suspect there will be many criticisms of it since it contradicts most studies of this sort.
For prior studies copy the link since this blog still doesn’t allow links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Clark, yours is one of the opinions I respect the most on this issue. If I might say something very respectfully, based on our past conversations, I think you have a tendency to take at face value what many scientists report when it might be a good time to be more skeptical. You know how important grant money is for scientists, and you know that global warming fanatics control the purse strings these days. And we keep on getting new information that directly contradicts the worst claims of the global warming fanatics. First, the hockey stick was shown to be a myth, then it turned out a lot of the climate studies were too localized, and their data incomplete and skewed, and now NASA stats are off.
Clark, I really, really urge you to read the articles in the National Post. It won’t take more than 30 minutes or so to go through them all.
One of the great untold stories of our generation is how we have allowed a group of anarchists, opportunists and some well-meaning but misguided people to substitute critical thinking for hysteria on the issue of climate change.
I hope you’re sitting down, Geoff, because you and I completely agree on this issue.
Your number three does not seem to be significant. If you can accept a NY Times article, see this: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/us/26climate.html
Or this: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/
Or this: scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/global_warming_totally_disprov.php
1934 and 1998 have gone from a statistical tie to a statistical tie, with no effect on the global trend.
I’m no fan of the frothy-mouthed climate worriers, but don’t fall into the trap of paying too much attention to the story about the bad data. At a minimum, your interpretation “It turns out NASA’s numbers were wrong: it was hotter in the 1930s than now.”
The recalculation changes the average temperature since 2000 by one-thousandth of a degree, and it doesn’t negate the findings relative to the 1990s and 2000s. The recalculation does create a local minima in the graph for the 1930s, which presents new opportunities for analysis, but it doesn’t change the observations for 1998-2005.
The task now is for the climatologists (and those that like to keep them honest) to determine the significance of the 1930s minima.
I continually maintain to clients and students that “right answers by wrong reasons are wrong answers.” Like I said, I’ve got issues with the approaches of the global warming Chicken Littles, but don’t set yourself up by making too much of the calculation problem. It’s not an effective weapon in the fight, unless you’re adopting the same scare tactics of the fearmongers.
Comment got cut off. In my first paragraph, I was trying to say:
At a minimum, your interpretation “It turns out NASA’s numbers were wrong: it was hotter in the 1930s than now” is a bit overblown.
a tendency to take at face value what many scientists report when it might be a good time to be more skeptical.
Good scientists try to be dispassionate about data, and spend their time being skeptical as to the bias, the methodology of collection, and the interpretation.
In other words – If the reading says X and there’s no problem with the equipment, fine, it’s X. Now, why does the reading say X and what does that mean?
That’s the part of science non-scientists don’t get.
The problem with some neocon hype over the data is that they have basically tried to cancel all arguments for global warming on the strength of a calculation error. OK, fine – so fix the calculation error. Now it’s time go go back and reanalyze the data — and this needs to be done by both sides.
I equate this to some of the early reaction to Bushman’s book. A lot of people I know read things Bushman wrote and said, “AHA! The Church isn’t true!” A lot of people I know read that and said, “AHA! Bushman is a hack!” The correct approach should have been, “OK, let’s assume Bushman and his extensive research is correct. Now what does that really mean?”
The week after the Newsweek story on global warming, Newsweek published an article by Robert J. Samuelson that gets to the heart of the issue – if global warming is real, there is not much we can do about it:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20226462/site/newsweek/page/0/
So we really ought to be grateful that a degree or two rise in temperatures or a foot or two in sea level is not the end if the world. Otherwise we would likely turn the economy upside down trying to stop it, and make little or no difference to the final outcome.
Mike, #8, I have officially popped the cork on a Martinelli’s sparkling apple juice to celebrate the fact that you and I agree on something.
So what are we supposed to do after we “calm down”?
For me, global warming has not been the impetus to own a hybrid vehicle, fill two recyclers, take re-usable grocery bags to the grocery store and use cloth diapers.
The biggest reason is that oil reserves are finite and smog makes people sick. And I’ve driven past dumps, and many communities have a limited space available for our garbage.
So even if this is true, this is not an excuse for you Rich Republicans to continue driving your SUVs and sneer at recycling.
I’m not sure if most SUV-driving Republicans (I’m thinking of my parents) “sneer” at recycling, but I do agree that a good impetus for change would be hitting people’s checkbooks with oil prices.
The earth’s warming may just be a limited trend. However, if we continue to try and be “environmentally friendly” (which mostly means trying to do much more with the same amount coal, oil, and gas that we use) we’ll see ourselves in a better position politically, economically, and health-wise in our respective nations. To me, THAT is the benefit of trying to lower carbon emissions. The earth may not care; our nation should.
Naismith, I’m not sure where in this post I have sneered at recycling (I assume you’re calling me a rich Republican, even though you have no clue of my financial situation). In fact, I just got through taking my recycling out to the curb this morning, and I support recycling and some of the other measures you mention.
I would ask you, in the most sincere voice possible, to actually read my first post and the links up there. The point of this post is not to make fun of environmentalists but instead to make fun of the global warming alarmists who turn every heat wave or hurricane into new evidence that global warming is upon us. The science simply doesn’t support this view, and I’m tired of the Al Gores of the world alarming my kids for no reason. (Did you know that Al Gore admitted he deliberately exaggerated the facts in “An Inconvenient Truth” for political reasons? I can provide you a link if you are interested.)
One of the most interesting things if you study the history of energy use is that it’s the marketplace that brings innovation. I agree that our oil reserves are finite (not as limited as the GW fanatics say, but still, yes, eventually we will run out). So, if we want energy, we have to come up with new sources. The technology of solar cells is advancing at a breakneck pace, primarily because finally we are getting to the point where the stuff is profitable. There are lots of houses now that are solar/wind powered and they are getting off the grid. That, to me, is a wonderful thing. I would do it in a second if I could, but the economics don’t work for my house yet.
So, don’t make the mistake of thinking that just because somebody has studied the science and doesn’t believe in global warming that he is somehow sneering at recycling. Just the opposite. But I want to concentrate on solutions that actually resolve problems rather than succumb to the hype.
1–I’d like to see Schulte’s article before trumpeting about its’ conclusions, either way.
2–Very few scientists I know agree with Al Gore 100%. Actually, none agree with him 100%. But, while you may disagree with his conclusions (which many scientists do), his science is sound. Most scientists I know who are working in climate science aren’t all that doom and gloomy (nobody reputable believes climate change will destroy the Earth), but we are very aware of likely consequences of global warming (more severe drought in some areas, more rain in others; permafrost melting; displacement of species). Life will go on, but it’s going to be different. The real question is, are we going to be proactive or reactive to those changes?
And as for the National Post–some of those articles are absolutely laughable. The one about Svensmark is particularly bad. The chemistry he describes is well-known, and causes cooling, not warming.
3–NASA’s numbers were off by a small enough margin (a less than a tenth of a degree, I seem to recall, but can’t find) that it doesn’t change the conclusion that the Earth is, on average, and not just in its extremes, warmer than at any other time since we started measuring.
“You know how important grant money is for scientists, and you know that global warming fanatics control the purse strings these days.”
How cynical. You must not know many scientists if you believe this. Yes, grant money is important, and to some extent we have to follow scientific “fads” in order to get paid; that said, people who are scientists aren’t scientists to make money, or somehow bilk the system. Most of us are genuinely curious souls who don’t mind a lot of hard, boring work in the pursuit of asking questions, or finding out new information. If global warming weren’t an issue, we’d find something else to study.
Kristine, here is an article on NASA’s numbers:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2271629.ece
Here is the key point:
=====================================
In a posting on his blog, Mr McIntyre wrote that Nasa records for the hottest 10 years on file had been dramatically changed in the US as a result of his research.
“Four of the top 10 are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999),” he wrote.
“Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900.”
The Goddard Institute claimed that the cause of the error was a switch to a new data-collection system in 2000. This led to an incorrect assumption that the old and new methods matched, which was proved to be untrue.
According to latest figures, 1934 is now the hottest year on record in the US at 1.25C higher than normal. 1998, the previous front-runner, is now second at 1.23C, followed by 1921 at 1.15C.
The old system put 1998 first, with 1.24C above normal, with 1934 at 1.23C. Next was 2006, now relegated to fourth place, which was placed at 1.23C.
===========================
My point is this: climate alarmists were using incomplete and wrong data. The 1930s were, on average, hotter than now. There are some valid issues to consider there, and one of them is the role that CO2 supposedly plays in global warming.
Well, there’s significant evidence that the roll of CO2 has been way overblown:
http://www.dailytech.com/Latest+Research+Erodes+CO2s+Role+in+Global+Warming/article8588.htm
I agree that Schulte’s article needs to be analyzed. It hasn’t come out yet. But I’ll make you a bet: no matter what it says, the results will be discounted by global warming alarmists, who are completely invested in the global warming hype. I hope the dispassionate scientists come forth and drown out the biased ones. But somehow I doubt it.
I’m not saying that scientists are bad people, which your last comments seems to imply. Most of them toil away in low-paid jobs studying somewhat dull information because they are, as you say, “genuinely curious souls.” However, at the end of the day, they can’t keep on studying things unless they get funding. So, who controls the funding? I’ll let you answer that yourself, but we both know that the vast majority of people who control the funding want results that favors the global warming “consensus.” Nothing cynical about that, it’s simply reality.
for a far more nuanced and, I would say, accurate portrayal of what scientists think about global warming, check out:
http://bostonreview.net/BR32.1/emanuel.html
Neoconservativism:
Hysteria about terrorism good
Hysteria about global warming bad
Threadjacks? Maybe OK.
Neoconservatism:
Sober, level-headed analysis of terrorists who have attacked the United States and are plotting to attack again.
Sober, level-headed desire to make sure global warning alarmists don’t stop economic growth, poverty reduction and cause hysteria among the young.
Threadjacks? Not OK.
Geoff–the average of the last decade is still warmer than the average of the 1930’s. That hasn’t changed.
“But I’ll make you a bet: no matter what it says, the results will be discounted by global warming alarmists, who are completely invested in the global warming hype. I hope the dispassionate scientists come forth and drown out the biased ones. But somehow I doubt it.”
and
“So, who controls the funding? I’ll let you answer that yourself, but we both know that the vast majority of people who control the funding want results that favors the global warming “consensus.””
Here you are claiming scientists are bad at science. You seem to think Michael Asher at the Daily Tech is a better scientist, or at least is reporting on better, more dispassionate science. He’s not. You also apparently think the only dispassionate scientist is one who agrees with you, and you seem to question the integrity of anyone who disagrees with your preconceived notions.
I realize pesky “facts” aren’t relevant to a discussion of this sort, but NASA’s temperature record aside, there’s still an impressive array of evidence showing average temperatures are warmer than they’ve been in centuries, if not thousands of years. You have Lonnie Thompson’s tropical glaciers that are melting back further than they have in thousands of years (at least 50,000 years in one case in I believe Peru); you also have permafrost melting at high latitudes that we know hasn’t melted in hundreds to thousands of years because we can carbon date the material preserved there; you can see plant and animal habitat ranges shifting; and there are many other lines of evidence. The USDA plant hardiness zone map has changed recently, with hardiness zones moving northward. Borehole temperatures, which have been proven to very accurately respond to air temperature changes, show significant degrees of warming–more, in fact, than Mann’s infamous hockey stick (which has been, incidentally, replaced with much better, truly multi-proxy reconstructions). These things aren’t happening randomly. They are a result of average temperatures increasing, in particular, average temperatures at high latitudes.
“My point is this: climate alarmists were using incomplete and wrong data. The 1930s were, on average, hotter than now. There are some valid issues to consider there, and one of them is the role that CO2 supposedly plays in global warming.”
No, the extremes were higher in the 1930’s. the average is still higher today. The readjustment of the NASA data changed the average by about a tenth of a degree for North America, and by less than a hundredth of a degree world-wide.
I have to second Kristine. Global warming naysayers like to pick out a few facts that are wrong in a minor fashion as if that discredits the whole array of data. That’s most unfortunate. As I said, the paper in question isn’t publicly available yet. When it is I’ll lay really good odds it’s discredited just like all the other anti-warming claims have been.
Note that the replies are already coming. Sorry for the complex links since the blog doesn’t support anchor tags.
http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2007/08/oreskes_responds_to_schulte.php
Note this is the response from the author of the original paper in question that supposedly has been revisited.
A few more:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/classifying_abstracts_on_globa.php
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/08/survey_less_than_half_of_all_p.php
When folks criticizing global warming consistently are so misleading I think it really behooves one to ask why one is listening to these guys. I stopped paying attention to the debate years ago because every time I’d investigate one of the supposed knock out punches the arguments would fall apart. Scientists had good answers to skeptics. Skeptics didn’t have good answers to the climatists. I just don’t have time to waste on the topic anymore. It lost interest much like debating Evolution doubters.
At this point it is established science. Realistically it has been for about a decade. I was a big skeptic in the 90’s but the evidence is there.
So what are we supposed to do after we “calm down”?
For me, global warming has not been the major impetus to own a hybrid vehicle, fill two recyclers, take re-usable grocery bags to the grocery store, use cloth diapers, etc.
The biggest reason is that oil reserves are finite and smog makes people sick. And I’ve driven past dumps, and many communities have a limited space available for new dumps.
So even if your “facts” about global warming were true, it would not be an excuse for you Rich Republicans to continue driving your SUVs and sneer at recycling.
You’re better off getting one of those high efficiency diesels than a hybrid. Most hybrids only get a few mpg better than the base vehicle. And you end up paying a $4000 premium for it. The diesels can get up to 50 mpg. Although admittedly the Prius does pretty good. (Lots of folks get 40 mpg)
We’ve had our Prius for almost two years. We average 45 mpg. In some situations, though, we’ll average 55 mpg (e.g., on a trip to the Florida Keys, where the speed limit is 45 mph, it seemed to be optimal for the car).
We didn’t pay any more for our Prius than we would have for a Matrix, factoring in only last year’s tax credit, not even accounting for the gas savings, which have been more than expected due to higher-than-expected pump prices.
We refused to pay the “dealer premium” (cost above sticker to get an in-demand car) and instead left our name on a waiting list. The dealer called us when they were trying to meet a quarterly sales quota, and said that if we could “arrange our own financing,” we could have the car tomorrow, a one-time offer. Because we save money towards a new car every month instead of making a car payment, we could just write a check (a testimony to all that church advice about staying out of debt).
But for us, there are other advantages to the hybrid. The Prius has a “big car feel”; it has a more stable ride than a lot of econoboxes because of the weight of the batteries. And the “stealth mode” is so quiet that one can run the air conditioning all night without bothering one’s neighbors, something that has been a great blessing to my husband on the various camping trips he needs to attend as part of his calling. Oh, and the seats lie down totally flat so that one can sleep in it, with the air conditioning running. This feature has allowed him to be totally functional the next day at work.
Plus, in the town where I live there are very few diesel pumps, mostly on the outskirts of town, so I don’t know how easy a diesel would be here. Our car in Brasil used alcohol fuel, and it was fine.
I’m not half as concerned about federal fuel efficiency standards as I am about federal horsepower standards.
It has been amply documented that higher powered cars kill. They facilitate more aggressive driving which leads to horrific highway accidents. The death toll each year is staggering and dwarfs all other causes of American death including the War in Iraq.
Unfortunately, American auto-makers are aware that horsepower sells, and are stuck in an arms-race with each other for more and more powerful motors. Our lives and those of our families are being put at risk by this.
Oh, and incidentally, lower horsepower means better fuel efficiency.
Naismith, I’m not sure why you posted the same comment twice. My response to your #15 and your #28 is #17.
Yeah, our rush to use ethanol has been a wonderful result of global warming hysteria. It has pushed up food prices of all kinds of items and, guess what? Ethanol is less environmentally friendly than plain old gasoline. This is what you get when you allow global warming hysteria to replace logical thinking.
See here, and if you don’t trust the source just google ethanol and food prices and start looking at the results.
http://www.energyxxi.org/xxi/resources/facts_ethanol.htm
Clark: When folks criticizing global warming consistently are so misleading I think it really behooves one to ask why one is listening to these guys.
This statement could so easily be reversed.
Clark, I’ll admit I’m getting a bit off-track going after scientists when, as you and Kristine point out, the majority of them are honestly trying to do their jobs.
My real target are the people who take that data and try to scare people with it. As I’ve posted before, Al Gore admitted in an interview that he deliberately exaggerated the effects of global warming for political reasons. Now, kids are forced to see his movie several times a year by overzealous teachers.
Can’t you spare a little scientific wrath for the dishonest shysters who are trying to scare the public with outright lies and exaggerations?
Kristine, Clark and Naismith,
Because you have set yourselves up at the main defenders of the global warming theory, I have a few questions for you:
1)The world’s temperature has gone up and down throughout history. Could you please tell me what the optimum world temperature should be? Is it the temperature of the 1920s, the 1930s, the 1960s or the 1600s and 1700s (when we had a mini ice age)?
2)If we are heading toward global cooling in the 22st century, for example, should we all pump more CO2 in the air to raise the worldwide temperatures?
3)All of the scenarios of lowering CO2 involve huge changes in worldwide industry. Industry gives people jobs, which helps them escape poverty. So, how many millions of people have to lose their jobs until you would be happy that we are fighting global warming effectively?
4)Have you ever considered that a small increase in worldwide temperatures may have some positive impacts? Do you know how many people a year die from the cold and diseases related to the cold? Have you considered the worldwide impact on crop production by slightly higher temperatures, which would allow food to be grown in areas it cannot be grown now?
5)Are you in favor of exaggerating the effects of global warming (as Al Gore has himself admitted he has done) for political reasons?
6)How many times a year should school children be forced to see “An Inconvenient Truth?” I know children who had to see it three times last year. My children had to see it twice. Can you see why people may begin to react negatively to their kids being forced to see dishonest propaganda?
Spare a little too for the “honest” shysters who, in the name of humanity, believe industrialization to be the sole cause of all calamity–and therefore jump on the global warming band wagon with just as much zeal-without-knowledge as those white wig-wearing wacko warming naysayers.
Spare a little wrath, that is.
“An Inconvenient Truth” is being shown in public schools? One more reason to home school I guess…
Aluwid, check this out: In Canada, some kids were forced to watch it in four different classes:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=f7806f79-bf1f-4bd1-8d33-c904feb71047
1–There is no optimal temperature for the Earth. There are optimal temperatures for different species, which is what causes habitat ranges to shift as temperatures shift.
2–My personal opinion (not my scientific opinion, since I don’t study this question at all) is that geoengineering is something that should be approached very, very carefully. There are always unintended consequences to actions that act on such a broad scale.
3–Not a fair question.
4–Yes, there will be benefits to global warming for some areas. In fact, last tuesday I heard a talk about who the prospective winners and losers are in global warming. Turns out the US is in pretty good shape. Depending on what metric you use China and India may be okay, or may be totally screwed. The paper’s submitted to PNAS (Proclamation of the National Academy of Sciences), and I’d be happy to tell you about it when it gets published. The authors actually admitted they were a little hesitant to publish the paper because there are a lot of countries who, at least based on this analysis, don’t have much to worry about. The political scientist in the group pointed out getting those countries on board (including us) will be harder when it’s pointed out the major impacts of global warming won’t affect them (us) greatly, even though some countries really will see significant impacts.
To ask you somewhat of the inverse question, is it fair to saddle a developing country with a costly local environmental catastrophe in order to support our cheap, consumption-heavy lifestyle?
5–No.
6–I’d leave it up to the parents and the school districts. I watched enough trash in high school I’d consider An Inconvenient Truth an improvement. As I said before, the science Gore presents is solid. The implications of the science, and his suggestion of what we should do, are a valid part of the debate. I think it is fair to expose kids to multiple viewpoints along with the logic behind those views, and then expect them to analyze and defend the viewpoints they choose.
I’m with you on the ethanol thing too–it’s a farce. Again, most scientists I know roll their eyes at the suggestion we could replace oil with ethanol. Ethanol has a much lower energy density, and even if we turned every piece of arable land in the country over to corn for ethanol production we couldn’t supply enough ethanol. But farmers are a powerful lobbying group and they know a cash cow when they see one.
“…is it fair to saddle a developing country with a costly local environmental catastrophe in order to support our cheap, consumption-heavy lifestyle?”
This is where the rubber meets the road in this debate. What kind of a reliable consensus is there among scientists as to the impact of industrialization on global warming? Do we know beyond a reasonable doubt that a less “consumption-heavy lifestyle” in the U.S. (and the like) will significantly reduce the possibility of “environmental catastrophe” in said (intimated) developing countries?
Kristine N.,
The U.N. projects a sea level rise of 23 inches in the next century. The National Academy of Sciences says between 4 and 35 inches. Al Gore says 20 feet. You consider that solid science?
Geoff: Could you please tell me what the optimum world temperature should be?
Depends what you want. What a Canadian might wish is different from what a person in Africa or the gulf coast might say. The issue is ultimately what effects are going to happen with rising temperature. A rise is temperature will melt glaciers which will cause the coasts to rise slightly. However as I’m sure you’re aware a slight rise is height can really affect many areas. For instance where I lived in Louisiana was about 100 miles from the coast but less than a foot above sea level.
Geoff: If we are heading toward global cooling in the 22st century, for example, should we all pump more CO2 in the air to raise the worldwide temperatures?
I don’t think there’s too many serious concerns about that. But it would certainly be easier to handle global cooling than global warming.
Geoff: All of the scenarios of lowering CO2 involve huge changes in worldwide industry. Industry gives people jobs, which helps them escape poverty. So, how many millions of people have to lose their jobs until you would be happy that we are fighting global warming effectively?
I think the economic issues are complex. Further the cost/benefit calculation has to include costs due to changes in agriculture, having to put levies up in 1st world countries (to save the Gulf Coast regions and parts of Europe), costs due to expected wars and famines, and so forth.
What I personally think is going on is that many conservative doubters (not you) don’t like the economic discussion so they spread fud on the scientific issue.
My personal feeling is that most countries won’t take the steps to ease global warming. Look at Canada which is far more liberal and environmentally conscious than the US. Yet it has horrible stats on the issue. (Admittedly strongly biased due to the tar sands – but there you go) The rich countries would rather spend the trillions to react to changes than deal with it. And they are rich enough to be able to do this. So the poor will bear by far the brunt of the problem. Of course the result will be more pressures on immigration.
Geoff: Have you ever considered that a small increase in worldwide temperatures may have some positive impacts?
Of course. I’m Canadian. If nothing else the opening up of the northwest passage will have a huge effect on the costs of transport – especially between Asia and Europe.
Geoff: Are you in favor of exaggerating the effects of global warming (as Al Gore has himself admitted he has done) for political reasons?
Not in the least. I think there’s plenty of fud on both sides.
However look at what has happened to conservatives who have unwisely politicized science. Now as a whole many people just don’t trust them and discount what they say out of hand even when they say good things. I think that this has happened to many (Gore among them).
Straight talking is the best policy.
Geoff: How many times a year should school children be forced to see “An Inconvenient Truth?
I don’t like videos like that in class myself. I’ve never seen the film in question so I don’t have any opinion on it really.
Naismith, as I said, the Prius does well. I was more thinking of the Civic, Expedition and others for which you pay a huge premium with relatively shallow benefits.
First of all, thanks Kristine and Clark for your answers.
Kristine, re your answer 4 in #40, there are some things you may want to consider. If the Latin America, Asia and Africa are going to get to Western-style living standards (which is what just about everybody wants), they most go through a phase of industrialization. This phase involves pollutants, including CO2. Just as an example, China has now passed the United States in CO2 production. Any worldwide attempt to decrease CO2 will not just affect the United States. It will have to cause a huge slowdown in industrialization in China, India and other countries, such as South Africa, Nigeria, Brazil and Mexico. These countries have the highest percentage increase in CO2 in the coming years because of a higher potential for new industrialization.
From the perspective of these countries, it is incredibly short-sighted and unfair to clamp down on their development so a bunch of greens from rich countries can “protect the environment.” We already have our riches, and we’re going to prevent other countries from growing their economies out of starvation?
At the same time, it is industrialization and entrepeneurship that allows innovation, which allows new things to be built. These new things always have the potential of being more environmentally friendly than older technologies. Think of how much cleaner to the environment Silicon Valley technologies are compared to smokestack technologies. So, if we try to stop industrialization in rich countries, we are 1)preventing the development of new environmentally friendly technologies and 2)preventing Third World countries from getting new technologies that may help them as well.
I have already decided where I am on this debate. I like the fact that businesses are trying to be environmentally friendly, but the only solution for our current problem (if, indeed, it is a problem, which is still up for debate) is industrialization and innovation, which will allow new technologies that will be cleaner and better for the Earth. One small example: recent advances in the commercialization of solar power have primarily come from entrepreneurs in CHINA. Eventually, the market will resolve everything.
In the meantime, there has been an unprecedented decrease in poverty worldwide in Asia and Latin America, which is a good thing all around.
I am extremely concerned that global warming alarmists will attempt to stop innovation, stop industrialization and eventually stop the poverty reduction revolution that is taking place. This would be much worse than a one-foot rise in the sea level (if, indeed, that happens, which I personally doubt).
“Naismith, I’m not sure why you posted the same comment twice.”
Because of course, your comments posting was acting wonky (yet again), and I did not think it had posted. It had gone into a “not available” screen and I couldn’t access your blog the rest of the day.
This happens a lot.
“Because you have set yourselves up at the main defenders of the global warming theory, I have a few questions for you:”
My answer is basically that I have no opinion. I refuse to answer your “How long have you been beating your wife?” questions. As I stated before, I think there are are reasons OTHER than global warming to think that we should be changing the way we live and do business.
The other point is that a social scientist married to a biological scientist, I actually respect the work of scientists and understand the strengths of the peer-review system. I am not arrogant enough to play dueling scientists the way some are so comfortable doing. I will fight tooth and nail in defense of the BMJ estimates about Iraqi deaths because I know the principles involved (and one of the reviewers was a friend). On this, I don’t have firsthand knowledge of the science.
“At the same time, it is industrialization and entrepeneurship that allows innovation, which allows new things to be built.”
But this should all be done in a moral way. It should be done in a way that respects the workers, by providing health insurance for them if it is in a country that uses a system of employer-provided health insurance and not making them work in unsafe conditions, and also in a way that respects the earth.
It is the morality issue, rather than global warming per se, that would cause me to oppose some of the wanton growth that you champion.
A couple fantastic books to read are Natural Capitalism and Cradle to Cradle. They talk about the ways that industry can both embrace sustainable systems and make a profit. Fascinating stuff.
Geoff, I think regarding third world nations its in their best interests to control pollution. Further it’s an old wives tale to suggest they have to go through the same steps of industrialization we did.
Right now probably the biggest problem in China is its pollution. They are running out of clean water and more importantly it’s affecting the peasants who still make up the majority of the population. I’d lay really good odds that global warming will affect China more than us and that China is worried about this. (Thus the build up in nuclear power)
Geoff–you’re right that it would be incredibly hypocritical for us first world nations to restrict the industrialization of third world countries over global warming concerns. However, nobody who actually thinks about this subject seriously thinks we should do that. Every proposal I’ve ever of how to deal with third world industrialization suggests we first world countries should help third world countries “leap-frog” over the carbon-intensive technologies to less carbon intensive technologies. I personally think it’s a really good strategy–not only do we slow carbon dioxide emissions, but we also create markets that aren’t based on carbon and thus won’t be competing for scarce fossil fuels. It’s likely that everyone will have to switch over to non fossil fuel based energy production within the next century, and nations that have at least some infrastructure based on energy sources other than fossil fuels will probably see an easier transition when we truly star running out of hydrocarbons.
Cynical? Who is cynical? In the 1930’s huge numbers of intellectuals were communists and unabashedly so. After all didn’t every intelligent person know that communism was a way out of the horrific problems caused by capitalisn?
Well here we are and communism is fully discredited (except for a few lunatics). So what is the new fad for the ills of capitalism? Environmentalism. But its not a cure suited for most of our “intellectual friends”. (Look at Al Gore’s utility bill. [But he bought carbon offsets! Oh yeah I can get you some shares of Enron])
It is a full fledged and horribly cynical device to get control over others while the pigs take over the farmhouse.
The truth is there are natural cycles of warming and cooling that have no anthropogenic component. The world has been both much colder and somewhat hotter than we have experienced in our generations and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. But we can pretend to do something about it by letting Al Gore and his CYNICAL cronies extort us.
Just say NO!
Georged #51,
Your “every intelligent person in the 1930s” strawman also believed in evolution (then far more scientifically tenuous than now), relativity, quantum theory, vaccination etc. You can’t simply discredit a position shared by an overwhelming majority of climatologists (i.e. that there is an anthropogenic component to current warming trends) by saying that at x time intellectuals believed y and y turned out to be wrong so what intellectuals believe today must, therefore, also be wrong. That logic is so juvenile that its fallacy is self-evident. “Mormons once believed that Christ was coming in the early 1890s; therefore, what Mormons believe today is wrong.”
Global warming is a salient issue. The scientific consensus on anthropogenic components have made the question more salient. Salient issues (like terrorism) can be more easily exploited to acquire and exercise power than non-salient issues.
Nobody who takes seriously the hysterical rantings of the Glenn Beck crowd about the apocalyptic threat that Muslims are on the verge of imposing Sharia law globally is allowed to complain about the irresponsible people who hysterically rant about a different global threat.
Furthermore, no one dissatisfied with the fear-mongering, proof-textish ax-grinding of the Kraukaeurs and September Dawns of the world gets to take the Glen Becks of the world seriously and simultaneously retain credibility.
Geoff’s complaints about the melodramatic style and abuse of peer-reviewed scholarship in Gore’s work are fine. There IS overwhelming scientific consensus (to the extent that such is even possible) on the anthropogenic component to global warming patterns. There is no such consensus as to the ideal mechanisms for dealing with the problem, the feasibility of such solutions, the desirability of such solutions, the impact that various posited solutions might produce in other spheres (i.e. whether or not restricting third world industrialization or prodding it in less CO2 intensive directions will exacerbate global poverty). Mr. Gore is entitled to his opinions. So is Geoff. So am I. But the fact that Gore and other activists misuse hard science is not grounds for dismissing said hard science any more than the impoverished film-making and ridiculous agenda behind Sept Dawn is grounds for pretending MMM never happened or the absurd rantings of Sean Hannity and Christopher Hitchens constitute grounds for dismissing the threat of terrorism.
Brad,
Well said–though one must admit that science in the socio-political arena has always been more problematic than science in the science community. I don’t think there’s a clear consensus on what climate conditions would be like without an anthropogenic influence; there really may be nothing we can do to thwart a warming trend. And yet here we all are doing back-flips over politicized assumptions rather than facts.
I agree Brad. While enviro hysteria has its own definite problems, I find it striking how similar the arguments of the anti-global warming crowd are to the arguments of anti-Mormons. Same bad logic, same old punching bags, same old fallacies.
By the way Geoff, that’s not a shot across your bow. I know you were only criticizing the overhyped rhetoric accompanying the environmental agenda.
What’s the current scientific consensus on whether or not Israelites lived in the Americas before the time of Christ? I think many of us choose to disbelieve current scientific paradigms for various reasons, having a spiritual witness of the Book of Mormon is an example of one reason why we might set aside the current secular ideas of our age and assume that further knowledge will be received later.
Regarding Global Warming, I’m only Joe Average so consider that while reading my opinion, but I find it hard to be persuaded by any amount of scientific consensus for three reasons:
1. I find it very hard to believe that humankind truly understands as much about our climate and all it’s variables as we claim to. Give it another couple decades with the same degree of consensus and no large change in the theories, and this reason should diminish for me.
2. The harsh rhetoric used against those that disagree. Those that equate global warming doubters with holocaust deniers are not doing the cause any favors. It seems like there are emotional reasons to avoid theorizing against the grain.
3. The drastic measures that often accompany the rhetoric. If this was just an abstract theory that people were talking about then I wouldn’t have the emotional investment to care one way or another and would just fall in line with what the scientists are saying. But acceptance is being pushed as the first step towards concrete societal change. Perhaps it’s needed, perhaps it’s not, but it does cause more reluctance on my part to accept the theories that are being presented.
Anyway, like I said, I’m just Joe Average, not a scientist, but perhaps my reasons above will help some understand why many resist this particular topic.
Hey Geoff, interesting conflicting topic once again đŸ™‚ hehe.
It’s sort of interesting how you mention that Al Gore says that Global Warming will be the end of the world and on and on.. I’ve heard him speak several times and my personal impression is that he’s trying to bring awareness in the way that we are consuming the planet that we live in, in “disproportionate” ways, and I think that’s what we ought to focus too.
I think that we all know that Global Warming is a cyclical pattern that has happened over and over, and what’s on question now is how much effect do humans have on it right? But leaving that aside, why not support the idea of stewardship with the earth ? Isn’t that one of our duties anyways? and why fight against a good idea for a good cause regardless?
It seems to me that a lot of the discussion in here is about the supposed “fear” about GLobal Warming. Iceberg’s are melting and the ocean is rising and there’s no doubt on that, so if you guys believe that Global Warming is not Human caused, that’s that make you stop been a good steward with our planet? does that not make you be more environment consciencious ? That’s all Al Gore asks, and in my humble point of view, I would much rather prevent.. if it’s not true GOOOOD ! the initiative to take care and push all nations to do a good cause would do good anyways, but if Al Gore is right then we might all be regretting. So I rather prevent then regret. Overall this is a topic that’s far wider then just the theory, because it leads you to think twice on how you consume and take things for granted. đŸ™‚
N.M. on a lot of the things I said ( I only read your first post ) and I saw that you believe that every nation has to go through the Industralization process, and polluting in order to progress ( What I understood I don’t mean to take you out of context ).
I think that we have the technology to improve many of this factors ( God gave us intelligence for a reason, and it’s there to be used for a good cause I believe ) Why get stuck on the old fashioned ones? . Greed is natural in humans, but sometimes we gotta bend that rule, spend some more for a better controlling pollution, C02’s, and whatever other chemicals been thrown out there that are extinguishing species, killing humans, bringing diseases and whatever other tragedies that industry pollutants bring. Nation’s can improve ins so many better way’s for both our earth and us, our kids and grandkids.
Aluwid #57- My thoughts exactly.
As long as the Global Warming Left tries to convert me using the same tactics as the clowns that stand outside the Conference Center at General Conference, I’m not likely to listen.
No matter what the “science,” I’m likely to dismiss anything out of hand that:
-Al Gore preaches.
-Hollywood and musicians decide are important.
-Is advocated primarily by the Democratic Left.
-Is a social fad (real or not, climate change is clearly a social fad)
The problem, as Aluwid mentioned, is that science has been brought into the political realm. If the science was divorced from politics, this would be very easy. Example: the medical field came to a decisive conclusion that smoking is bad for you. Great. I expect the government to advocate abstinence from it, and I would want schools to teach it. No problem.
But if man really is causing climate change, and if man really can stop/fix/reverse it, it’s going to necessitate changes so huge that only the government can mandate and manage them.
That’s where the politics come in. Now you have politicians and political ideologies with a dog in the fight and an ax to grind.
I believe that the Global Warming Left, with their huge influence in the media, academia, and education, will eventually indoctrinate the majority of Americans. The public will give power to the politicians who claim they’ll do something about it, and laws will be enacted with the supposed purpose of combating climate change.
I also believe that in a decade or so, we’ll have refined the science to the point where we realize the foolishness of all the hype. We’ll be embarrassed because we bought into the fad. And the politicians will have a new crisis for us to give them power to fix.
I’m all for being a good steward of the earth. I recycle, drive a fuel-efficient vehicle, and contribute to wilderness advocacy groups. Why not emphasize good stewardship of the earth and all the many ways to truly be “green,” rather than have this narrow focus on stopping climate change?
Tossman,
The tobacco example is precisely the point. At the time when all the “hype” around the dangers of tobacco was first emerging from the scientific community, it was hugely contested in the political sphere according to a dichotomy that largely corresponded to the right/left sphere of the American political spectrum. Why is something coming from a liberal politician (Al Gore) or liberal interest groups or actors or musicians somehow intrinsically less credible than something coming from the industry that stands to suffer economically by the government regulation of the product in question (be it CO2 or tobacco smoke)? Even today, as science develops a consensus around the harm of second-hand cigarette smoke, is it liberal politicians and communities or conservative ones that are more prone to ban smoking in public places? Is Martin Sheen or Rush Limbaugh more likely to support such bans? Do you really think that oil and coal industry execs are more trustworthy on the question of GW than tobacco execs were on the harmfulness of cigarettes or the existence of nicotine addiction?
American politics are driven by interest, and disproportionately by special interest. Some special interests are more ideologically-based (rights movements, environmental orgs, think tanks, religious groups, etc) and some are more economically-based (energy industry, auto industry, unions, entertainment industry). The fact that some set of special interests support some policy changes–even relatively dramatic ones–does not in itself bear on whether said policy changes are correct or desirable. If the GW Left, as you call it, is correct, then major changes are needed and much is at stake; if they are incorrect, then they are incorrect. The fact that they ARE the Left means nothing, in either historical or presentist terms, with regard to whether they are correct.
To dismiss their claims because of who they are is just as stupid and juvenile as uncritically accepting their claims just because of who they are.
Tell me this then, Brad- do you consider radical Islam a threat? Many (I’d bet even most) left-leaners dismiss this outright. The fact that Anti Radical Islam Right IS Right should mean nothing with regard to whether they are correct.
So I challenge people all the liberal-minded posters here to think about this- do I discount the threat of Radical Islam because I simply don’t believe it? Or do I discount it because most of the rhetoric about it comes from the Right?
Now you may understand my innate resistance to Global Warming Theory.
I consider radical Islam to be a very serious threat to countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt, and Israel among many others in the region. Since the US has a great deal invested in those countries, it is a very real and serious threat to US interests as well.
But it’s not currently much of a threat at all to the US homeland. 9-11 notwithstanding, radical Islam is largely a regional problem. I’ve always felt that the real threat to the US international position has been and remains traditional state actors. I consider Russia more of a threat to US interests than Al Quaeda.
Tossman, I largely agree with Brad but think that radical Islam demonstrates that both sides of the field engage in this unfortunate behavior. There are simply many people who inexplicably feel all politics is about opinion and that facts are just opinion. Both the left and the right accuse each other of this. But the sad, sad fact is that there are many facts available out there and many very reasonable and supportable theories. However when these disagree with what people want to be true they are treated as if they were just an other opinion of ones opponent.
It pains me how much our politics has become like this.
Right now the right are the most guilty primarily because they’ve had the power the last while. However when, as most expect, Clinton becomes President I suspect we’ll see this sort of sophistry quite a bit from them.
What’s needed is a sea change where people become more technically informed and are able to discern good and bad arguments.
Tossman, I think that it’s unnecessary to compare the far left to the “clowns” standing outside conference, just because their opinion don’t match your’s it just sounds plain “immature” to be honest. It’s kinda sad that one can not come here and discuss a topic without pinpointing fingers and calling out people names.. where’s the compassion huh heh. Oh well I’m just glad to go on my mission and grow strength on that field đŸ˜‰
Anyways I recommend everyone to go watch the “11th hour”. đŸ™‚
Felipe I think both the “far left” and “far right” are like this. I think the problem is that many Republicans want to categorize all Democrats as “far left” when few are. Ditto for the Democratic activists who see all Republicans as “far right” when few are.
I just wish we could not have to create caricatures of each other and could actually listen to each others arguments and attempt to understand. Yes, we may still disagree. But understanding rather than creating strawmen would improve politics in our country so much.
Felipe, I’m not comparing the far left to clowns (at least not in the post you reference). I’m comparing the tactics of the conference protesters to the tactics of the Global Warming Left. I meant no offense with the comment. If you took offense at it, that’s your problem.
Awesome, more life insight from the noble Hollywood fountain of wisdom.
Clark, the problem is that the main players on the political stage (politicians, activists) are indeed Right/Left caricatures. We kinda have to play this game in “caricature mode.”
Hey Tossman, no I didn’t take any offense at all, I just thought it was not needed to go as saying that, at the end of the day, those contradicting the gospel tends to be the right wing anyways.
I just couldn’t help but mention the “11th hour” since I know it’s something that would bother you greatly, but if you haven’t seen it, I’ll give you an overview. It has nothing to do with the politics of Global Warming or Climate Change, but the effects of human consumption and the exploitation of resources, the impacts of this cause and future implications if we don’t improve and change our way of living by implementing the factors that yourself use Tossman :-).
I agree with you Clark Glove.
Tossman, I didn’t mean to write ” Since I know it’s something that would bother you greatly” what I mean was ” Since I know it would be something that you would dismiss and tickle your fingers a bit heh. It would be a great thing if there was an “Edit” feature here. Anyways have a great day guys. !
Pretty bold statement there, Felipe. Could you please give me some examples to back it up?
#60 “As long as the Global Warming Left tries to convert me using the same tactics as the clowns that stand outside the Conference Center at General Conference, I’m not likely to listen.
No matter what the “science,” I’m likely to dismiss anything out of hand that…”
Your criticisms are fair. In fact, the media circus you describe is extremely frustrating for level-headed climate scientists who are desperate to somehow communicate the threat we face but themselves are a bit clumsy and uninteresting from a PR point of view.
You say ‘no matter what the science’. But you can’t really mean that, surely. You can’t be saying that even if the science were to demonstrate with undeniable evidence that climate change is being driven by our civilisation’s profligate and excessive energy use and that the world is in dire peril because of it, that you would still ignore the whole problem simply because you were offended by a few clowns. That would be like refusing to save a drowning man because you didn’t like the colour of his hair.
PS. climate change is a security problem for the US and the world, so even if one doesn’t care about the trees and flowers, the security issue casts global warming in a different light.
This report by Oxford Research Group is not put together by clowns or Global Warming Lefties with hidden agendas. It’s a very sober and serious look at the problem of climate change by security experts, and far more detailed than a similar report commissioned by the Pentagon a couple of years ago.
http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/globalthreats.php
Kyle- Notice I put the word “science” in scarequotes. I’m not talking about actual pure science. I’m talking about what we seem to be getting from climate change preachers, which I believe to be the philosophies of men, mingled with science.
By the way, you should know that I do understand that climate change is taking place. I’m just not convinced 1) That man is responsible for it, 2) That we can fix, stop, or reverse it, and 3) That we should make the huge changes the GWL is advocating because I don’t believe we actually have enough of a grasp on 1 and 2.
You don’t need to prove to me that climate change is occurring. You need to prove to me, fairly unequivocally, that man is causing it and that we can actually change it. And you need to do that with pure, unadulterated, non leftist-funded, depoliticized science.
I’m not saying we need to make no changes. Even if man isn’t destroying the planet, he certainly is soiling the environment. I am simply not in favor of making the massive policy and government changes advocated until we have a better handle on the whole thing and we’ve solved what I believe are more pressing issues.
Climate change may be a security issue at some point, but there are too many urgent security issues (our border, Iraq, Iran and its nukes, Pakistan, the Islamification in Europe) to start worrying about the climate change aspect of it.
Oh and Felipe- I guess you’re not going to respond to my #70. Yeah, that’s what I thought.
I agree with what Tossman says in #73, and I’ll add another caveat that we all need to consider:
Let’s say that the science is conclusively been proven (which it has not) and let’s say that we are without a doubt (there are still doubts, but for the sake of argument) suffering from global warming and that it is caused by man (which I don’t believe, but again for the sake of argument), and let’s say that scientists conclusively prove that sea levels will go up 1 foot in the next 50 years, causing devastation in Florida, the Netherlands, Bangladesh, etc.
And let’s say that these same scientists say that if we lower CO2 levels by half (or whatever the number is), we will avoid the devastation. Then, we need to look at the economic cost of doing this in a rational way, which is not taking place. What I mean by this is, OK, is it easier to move 100 million people away from low-lying areas and resettle them elsewhere, or is it easier to find new jobs for 1 billion people who will lose their jobs if we shut down millions of different industries? Those are the kinds of discussions that need to be had. And when you start looking at that issue, I think you come to the conclusion that the world is willing to “wait and see” before putting 1 billion people out of work and/or resettling 100 million people.
Just another point:
I grew up in coastal California, right on the beach. I have been going to the same beach there for 40 years. There is NO EVIDENCE that the seas have risen even an inch in the area where I grew up in 40 years (I go back to visit all the time). In fact, at low tide there are all these new reefs that have been popping up, and it appears the sea levels are actually going down. I realize this could be caused by displacement of sand, etc, but still, no evidence of sea levels increasing in 40 years. I have lived in coastal Florida for 20 years. I remember in the late 1980s there was a map showing that all of the barrier islands (Miami Beach, Key Biscayne, Key Largo, and on and on) would be half-covered by water by 2010. And here we are in 2007 and there has been NO INCREASE in the sea levels in these areas and in fact the beaches are bigger, not smaller.
I realize this is not scientific. Somebody will explain this away with a lot of gobbledegook about polar caps and blah, blah, blah.
But I am a relatively intelligent consumer of information, and I have been hearing alarmist garbage about global warming for 20 years, and all the things predicted by the alarmists have NOT HAPPENED. So, why should I believe them now, when it’s the same people saying the same things?
#73 Tossman what you’re saying is reasonable. My answer regarding the unequivocal science is that it’s out there. The media has given a ‘balanced’ report – i.e. pro and con – which exaggerates the ‘balance’ of the balance and doesn’t convey how convinced the huge majority of scientists actually are.
There are uncertainties, yeah. However they are uncertainties of scale and particular aspects of modelling. Climate sensitivity – how much degree rise you get for what set of conditions – is an unknown scale. Cloud formations, for instance, are hard to factor in modelling. Local effects are difficult to predict, even though the ‘big picture’ is clear.
Even taking the uncertain elements into account, the risk of dangerous levels of global warming is still beyond what we would accept for other issues. If I said there was ‘only a 5%’ risk that a 2 degree rise in termperature globally would catapult us past the tipping point to serious planetary danger you might say that’s not a serious threat. But if I told you that if you climbed on flight 044 today there was a 5% chance of it crashing, you’d simply not take the risk.
Here’s a document explaining the risk factor in terms of strict probablilistic science and the general seriousness of our situation. There’s loads of links to proper science in it. These two guys are American climate scientists and economists who I worked on liaison with briefly here in the UK, on a document for the last UNFCCC conference in Nairobi. (They’re lefties but they’ve only started getting funding recently. Their most important research was done before that, simply out of scientific concern. This article is a good read and is a good scientific argument.)
http://www.ecoequity.org/ceo/ceo_8_2.htm
You say, quite rightly, that “Even if man isn’t destroying the planet, he certainly is soiling the environment”. I personally think the climate change issue has made us forget that even without global warming there is an underlying ecological crisis that’s happening even as we speak. Too many people – projected by the UN to grow to 9 billion by 2050 – consuming an exhausted environmental resource base (including water most importantly), at too great a pace of increase.
1) Is man causing it? A huge range of highly authoritative international scientific bodies, including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, say yes we are without a doubt. There are issues of natural variation, to be sure, but our own effect in vastly driving global warming above any kind of natural variation is well established. This article from Science magazine addresses the issue and has piles of links to statements such as the one from the National Academy of Sciences.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
2) Can we do anything about it? We don’t have much choice but to try. At The higher scale of climate sensitivity is close to 6 degrees average termperature rise by the end of this century. A group of researchers at Bristol university have established that a 6 degree rise in temperature
was all it took to kill of 95 percent of species on earth during a mass extinction even at the end of the Permian period, 251 million years ago.
(It’s in an academic journal, not online, but I can give you the ref if you want.)
Here’s a run down of what happens with each increasing degree of average global temperature rise, based on a Guardian article on the Bristol research.
http://www.marklynas.org/2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-summary-of-six-degrees-as-published-in-the-guardian
Regarding there being more pressing security issues. The Oxford Research Group report I gave the link to in #72 above is downloadable as a pdf and is, I promise you, the most intelligent discussion of climate change as a security issue you’ll ever read. It discusses the war on terrorism and compares that as a security issue to climate change as a security issue.
#74 Geoff B. The economic consequences of not mitigating a rise in temperatures will be far worse than biting the bullet now.
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm
I don’t know how you can say the predictions are not happening. The polar ice caps are melting at an alarming rate. This is why everyone’s fighting over rights to the newly opened up oil possibilities up there.
Lake Chad in northern Africa – which used to be enormous – is dwindling to the size of a puddle before our eyes and cartographers are struggling to keep up with the speed of its disappearance.
I take your points about sea level rise. The media has a bad habit of reporting huge sea level rises as though they’re going to happen tomorrow. The truth is they’re a longer term effect – even if the West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapsed. Most of sea level rise is caused by thermal expansion of the water as it warms rather than ice melting into it. This expansion happens gradually.
The main things we should be concerned about in the short term is changes in global precipitation patterns and the effect of this on agriculture. More or less continual dryness and drought conditions in some areas, repeated flooding in others. Forest fires are a huge risk in the US and can only get bigger and badder.
The effect of global warming on food production and water are the key concerns and have little to do with economics and employment. If global food production gets battered then there’s no food: simple. Drought means no water: simple.
The 2003 heat wave in Europe that killed 35,000 people was widely reported. What’s not so well known is that Europe suffered a 20% crop failure. Imagine that and worse in the United States.
Kyle R, I respect you as a scientist, and I believe you have accurately and fairly completely conveyed the scientific consensus. You have done this is a respectful, dispassionate way, and for that I salute you with all sincerity.
There have ALWAYS been climate changes. Throughout history. Jefferson spent a lot of time worrying about global warming in the late 1700s and early 1800s because the early settlers saw snow on the ground 7 months of the year in Virginia in the 1600s, and by Jefferson’s time there was only snow on the ground 4 to 5 months of the year. Now, there’s only snow on the ground in Virginia in most years for a week at a time. The 1930s were apocalyptic in the United States compared to now (imagine a nearly nationwide drought in the middle of a Depression — now THAT is a catastrophe).
Yet, we got through these tough times, and the weather changed, and there were some losers and some winners. Winners included farmers with a longer growing season, the losers included Indians who were forced out and massacred. The same thing will happen if we go through a prolonged climate change today — people may have to leave their Miami Beach condos (good riddance, I say) and move to Georgia. But farmers in Alberta and Montana are going to be loving life.
Kyle, I’m sorry, but you’re talking to one of the original doom and gloomers. I know all the stories about Lake Chad. During the 1980s everybody was worried about the Sahara desert, which was “expanding” at an area the size of Texas every year. Pretty soon, they told us, the desert was going to take over all of Nigeria and the Congo. And lo and behold, the weather changed, and the desert receded again. Nigeria and the Congo are still tropical and rainy.
I stopped being a doom and gloomer when I calmed down and realized the everybody sees the climate through their own prism in time. Every since Malthus we’ve been told the world is going to run out of food. And every year the population expands and food production expands with it. Now our problem is that farmers are too fat because they produce too much food while they sit on their tractors listening to Garth Brooks on their radios. Sorry, you’re going to have to peddle doom and gloom to somebody else. I won’t be buying it.
Geoff,
You acknowledge the “accurate” and “fair” the manner in which Kyle conveys the science associated with this question, but then engage him as though he had done nothing but personal conjecture and anecdote–i.e. by doing precisely that yourself. You can’t (shouldn’t) run away from the very specific, concrete, measured, and falsifiable arguments he presents by simply dismissing them out of hand–“I’ve heard this before…people were wrong about this kind of thing before, so I’m not going to believe it now…I used to believe these kinds of things, but since I’ve grown up…science schmience.”
The fact that people have been wrong in the past about things related to the present concerns has absolutely positively no bearing in any way whatsoever on the question of whether or not said present concerns are reasonable and deserving of our serious attention. They either are or they aren’t, regardless of whether or not you used to be a gloom-and-doomer, of whether people were right or wrong about desertification in Northern Africa, of the dietary habits of overfed American farmers.
What do food and water shortages–a very real and omnipresent problem, not just a theoretical speculation, for hundreds of millions of people in many parts of the world–have to do with Garth Brooks or Malthus?
Put differently,
If you presented a careful, methodical, measured case about the security threats posed to the US by, say, Iran, based upon thorough and thoughtful analysis of a wide swath of intelligence reports, historical and sociological data; if you presented your data–either in small summary or via links to more thorough analysis–to bolster your argument and rationalize your concerns, giving all potential naysayers real, workable, readable chunks of information subject to their own independent analysis; if you did all this only to have someone like me respond with, “yeah, I used to be one of those hysterical, chicken-little, Iran-is-coming types, but I don’t take seriously what any intelligence reports have to say because we got the WMD thing so obviously wrong in Iraq, plus the sociological data was probably funded by a bunch of neocon activists, plus I think Dick Cheney is a big jerk”–you’d be pretty (justifiably) incensed.
It’s one thing not to respond to a serious threat; it’s quite another to tire at the incessant cry of “wolf!”
…especially when the wolf is really there.
Which time? The first, the second, the third…
Brad, I am not swayed by any of the evidence that shows a)that there is climate change that threatens the planet and b)even if there were that it is caused by human activity and c)that humans can do anything to change the situation. So, I guess I would say I have looked at the evidence and found it less than convincing.
That doesn’t mean I don’t like hearing from people like Kyle who present their arguments well. It is really a nice change to have people present their arguments in a reasoned, dispassionate way.
Geoff I likewise I appreciate your dispassionate approach to the issue and can see you are an intelligent consumer of information, not to mention well-informed. I’m not sure I want to be described as ‘peddling’ anything, though. I simply wanted to respond to your original post, which I felt undersold the crisis by including links to sources that, with all due respect, aren’t very authoritative or credible. I understand completely why the hysteria of sections of the environmental movement grate on you. They grate on me, but where they’re not acting hypocritically I appreciate that at least they’re doing something.
The “malthusian problem” has never really gone away. The overpopulation/food “crisis” of the 1960s-70s was resolved through the development of high-yield crops. All was then well and people have said, “See, all that fuss over nothing.” But high-yield crops require gargantuan amounts of water and have, during the last decades, depleted water tables to dangerous levels. The malthusian problem was brushed under the carpet, in effect, and is now back with a veangence. Crop scientists are warning that there are no more magic rabbits in the hat.
It’s true as you say that climate is always in flux, and that humans just adapt. It would be absolutist of me to insist there aren’t marginal chances of everything being ‘okay in the end’ – despite the fact that billions will almost certainly suffer.
However, there is a unique factor in our current climate/environmental situation on this planet, which is the key issue. We really are in a position to see not just doom and gloom but dreadful collapse and a possible extinction event by next century. This is why it’s important.As
There’s also a moral issue here.
1) Science does demonstrate far beyond reasonable doubt that energy consumption and industrial civilisation are driving up average global temperatures. Science also shows how this rise in temperature is accelerating exponentially with a high risk of tipping points where billions of tons of methane could create runaway global warming.
2) It’s quite clear what effect this will have on places such as Southern Africa, Australia, South Asia.
2) You’re quite right that humans somehow muddle through. We in the wealthy west are in a position to muddle through because of all the resources we’ve been able to develop owing precisely to our huge energy consumption and industrial civilisation.
3) We are currently in a position to mitigate the damage to poor and vulnerable people – and the possible avoidence of a terrifying and desperate situation for our grandchildren – by immediately addressing the issue, both through personal behaviour, and corporate and government action. Braley’s excellent point about the fact that real human beings face a very real – not theoretical – nightmare of no food and no water. We can do something to put the brakes on this nightmare before it enters the realms beyond nightmare for them.
4) If we do not do this then we are in effect shrugging our shoulders at at the fact that billions of poor and vulnerable people can go with out water and food and die for all we care. But we refuse to change our way of life. We are also saying we’re not bothered what kind of planet our grandchildren have to live on.
As Brad puts it very well. The “wolf is really there”….
This is really my only point. Thanks for the mutually respectful discussion of it Geoff.
#79 Bradley. Excellent point and well put. The report I gave the link to in #72 by Oxford Research Group argues that this insane focus – on Iran, Iraq, and the “war on terror” – in the light of what we know is happening to the global environment, is like beating a rabid dog that bit you and getting the whole community to organise against rabid dogs, but completely ignoring the fact that your house, and farm, and the whole village, and the forest all around them, are all ablaze with fire.
I love being right:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html
Right again. 2006 and 2007 had the lowest hurricane activity in decades:
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
Whatever happened to the claim that global warming is causing more hurricanes?
This is a little like thinking that since the stock market was down in 2001 and 2002, that the average annual gain of about 10% over the last century is a meaningless trend. I’m glad I don’t invest based on your logic, and I don’t think I’ll use it either in my judgments on climate change.
Wow, Geoff, I just stumbled across this blog and I couldn’t disagree with you more.
#32. The ethanol boondoggle was not a result of global warming hysteria. It started out as a research effort to convert switchgrass and other non-agricultural plants. At the last minute, some clever farm lobbyists changed the language about processing methods so that corn could be used. It’s purely another agricultural subsidy that no politician from either party will oppose, at least not until after the Iowa caucuses.
#35 While Gore’s movie does exaggerate some aspects of the problem, would you even be discussing this issue if he hadn’t made the movie? What public policy issue ever gets advanced without some degree of sensationalism or exaggeration? The public is pretty difficult to reach with purely scientific arguments; even if they could understand such arguments, people don’t care unless they can visualize some catastrophic effect on their own lives. It’s no different than the hysteria over Sputnik, which led to our space program and all the associated burst of technological development. This is a better way to assess Al Gore’s efforts than merely pointing out the few errors he’s made in his data.
#45 Your fears about alarmists stopping innovation are exactly backward. Al Gore himself is pushing technological solutions, including those that would reduce poverty. All legitimate environmentalists understand that only wealthy nations and people can afford the high-tech pollution controls.
#60 (not yours, but sadly representative of many LDS people I discuss this with) Why would anyone reject a message because of the foolish tactics of a few? That’s the same rationale people give for not listening to LDS missionaries because of the polygamists in So. Utah.
#74 I can’t believe you’d really base an opinion on your own anecdotal observation of beaches.
#77 I also can’t believe you’d rely on the old Malthus “doom and gloom†approach. If people like Malthus didn’t describe what could happen, others wouldn’t have focused on these problems. Under this approach, we wouldn’t have the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts in the U.S., and we wouldn’t have unleaded gasoline (which has saved us from dangerous levels of lead poisoning); our rivers would still be heavily polluted (as they are in places that lack such statutes), and so forth. Since when do we want to ignore the problems we’re creating for future generations?
I think LDS should be leaders in the environmental movement, since our own scriptures express greater concern for the environment than the Bible, Koran, etc. Frankly, I’m stunned that LDS people dismiss the damage we’re causing, especially when they do it in the name of “economic progress.†In what possible way does that reflect LDS values?
Wow, Jonathan, I’m glad you came here to comment, and I can’t believe you care so little about human beings and their future prosperity that you would allow Al Gore and some future group of bureaucrats to take away your freedom and stop worldwide progress all in the name of something that cannot be proven through actual scientific research so must be exaggerated and turned into a “doom and gloom”-fest. Do you realize that chicken littles have been worried about global warming since the 1980s, just one decade after they were worried about global cooling?
Al Gore recently said all of the ice will disappear in the arctic in a few decades. Wow, now THAT is what I call scientific. This from the man who refuses to debate anybody who disagrees with his point of view.
Jonathan, I am stunned that you refuse to recognize that the Earth was placed here for man and for our eternal progress. I am stunned that you fail to recognize that the global warming movement would cause hundreds of millions if not billions of future people to suffer in poverty so that a few rich Westerners can satisfy their liberal guilt and be politically correct. I am stunned that you do not recognize that no prominent person in the global warming alarmist crowd, including Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Al Gore, has any actual plan for lowering emissions that does not involve turning over our liberty to some governmental body controlled by bureaucrats.
Bill, sorry to say it, but you are very wrong once again. There have been many decades in which hurricane activity was much worse than now.
Take a look here:
http://iconicmidwest.blogspot.com/2005/08/global-warming-hurricane-myths.html
(Note that the above was written before the relatively inactive hurricane seasons of 2006 and 2007). The claim that hurricanes are somehow worse because of global warming is yet another of the many inconvenient untruths peddled by our newest Nobel laureate. I am surprised that any intelligent person could believe it.
once again?
Geoff, your boilerplate is becoming more and more embarrassing.
Bill, I did not detect any arguments in that comment.
The real problem is that Bill has no idea what boilerplate is.
I’d like to post an excerpt that will show some of the tactics used by global warming fanatics in 1988 to try to fool people into worrying about a nonexistent crisis:
Here is the link for this excerpt:
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDk2YjVlYTYzZjZkNTRhZWU2NGNkNzcwYTMzMmFlNGQ=
Stagecraft [Chris Horner]
Today’s Washington Times print edition has an op-ed by Jack Kelly (“Cold water on Gore feverâ€), with an accompanying cartoon depicting a teacher dialing up the thermostat to uncomfortably warm levels to set the stage for screening Gore’s alarmist (and now judicially discredited) “An Inconvenient Truth.†Believe it or not, this is a ploy employed by none other than Gore himself, as admitted in a recently aired PBS Frontline special “Hot Politics” which aired in April of this year.
In this encomium to the alarmist movement, former Senator Timothy Wirth (D., Co.), now head of Ted Turner’s UN Foundation, revels in having engaged with Gore in precisely such ploys for the first “global warming” hearing, chaired by Gore himself, in 1988:
TIMOTHY WIRTH: We called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6th or June 9th or whatever it was. So we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it.
DEBORAH AMOS: [on camera] Did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day?
TIMOTHY WIRTH: What we did is that we went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room. And so when the- when the hearing occurred, there was not only bliss, which is television cameras and double figures, but it was really hot.
The wonderful Jim Hansen [NB: still Gore’s advisor and cheerleader today] was wiping his brow at the table at the hearing, at the witness table, and giving this remarkable testimony.
Frontline then showed the desired shot of a sweaty Hansen that made the national news coverage of what Wirth laughingly calls “stagecraft”. That’s one word for it.
….
It seems Gore and Wirth didn’t corner the market on “stagecraftâ€, but only passed it on to the next generation of the alarmist industry.
10/25 12:46 PM
So, to sum up what I have been saying in this post, which, btw, continues to be extremely timely:
1)There appears to be some evidence that global temperatures are rising, but much more slowly and less alarmingly than the global warming fanatics would have us believe.
2)It is really unknown what effect if any human emissions have on the global environment, but most likely there is little human beings can do to slow the slight warming that is taking place.
3)I oppose any worldwide government or other supranational agency trying to restrict my freedom and will fight it vigorously. If people want to voluntarily drive hybrids and recycle and take other steps to help the environment, more power to them. I even do some of these things myself. I consider myself a conservationist in the Teddy Roosevelt tradition.
4)I decry the alarmism of global warming extremists, who are either willingly duplicitous or well-meaning but deceived.
5)Any solutions that are proposed must look to the marketplace. Tax cuts to give incentives are likely to work best.
6)In the fight between “the planet” and “human beings,” I always choose the welfare of human beings first. I think this is in line with the Gospel. Yes, we should be kind to the planet but our first calling is to be kind and loving to other human beings.
7)Many of Al Gore’s most extreme claims are pure fiction, such as the now thoroughly discredited claim that more and more powerful hurricanes are being caused by global warming. I don’t agree it’s a good thing to scare children and exaggerate the threat all in interest of a “greater cause.”
#90 – It’s ironic that in these discussions, both sides claim to care the most about human beings and their future prosperity. However, if you look at the fear-mongering, it is most irrational and nonfactual when it comes from the anti-global warming crowd.
One example among many is the one you cited about “some future group of bureaucrats.†Who do you think wants to preserve our “burn as much oil as we can as fast as we can†economy? The same people who objected to the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the EPA, the FDA, and all the other government agencies that were created precisely because the “free market†can’t, or won’t, include externalities in financial analysis and pricing.
Although I hear it all the time, it’s an absurd argument to say that we shouldn’t care about global warming because some people in the past feared global cooling. We continually obtain better knowledge about our environment and the impact of our own activities on it. In addition, the impact of human activity has accelerated over the last few decades.
Far from being a doom and gloom fest, environmentalists are pragmatic and realistic. Do you think the plants and animals that are migrating in response to climate changes are doing so because Al Gore somehow trained them to? How about the crustaceans at the bottom of the ocean’s food chain that are dying off because the increased CO2 in the oceans has made them more acidic and these organism can no longer extract the calcium they need from the seawater?
I’m not sure whether the Earth was placed here for us or if God simply found a suitable planet and sent us here, but either way, I agree we are using it now for our eternal progress. That’s what makes our disrespect of the Earth so disgusting. Often LDS people will quote me D&C 104:17 about how the earth is full, etc., but they ignore the context; i.e., verses 16 and 18, which explain that the poor shall be exalted and the rich made low, and that if any man shall take of the abundance which I have made and impart not his portion…he shall lift up his eye in hell. That’s what I’m talking about. Instead of propagating the current system that focuses on materiality, inequality, plundering and waste of resources, etc., why shouldn’t we shift toward a sustainable lifestyle?
I happen to think that a large part of Malachi’s statement about the hearts of the children and the fathers involves an intergenerational bonding that is not limited to temple sealings but also includes caring for them in mortality. This means taking care of the earth, not wasting it. Why else would Malachi speak of the “earth†being smitten with a curse? If he was talking about sealings only, he would have spoken of the people being smitten with a curse.
Environmentalism pervades the scriptures, especially the LDS scriptures.
Ironically, it’s not the global warming movement that would cause the poorest people to suffer; it’s global warming itself, which has a disproportionate impact on the poor who already live in the hottest areas and closest to the seashores. It’s only the rich who live in the northern hemisphere who will “benefit†from a warmer earth—precisely the ones who, like yourself, downplay the increasingly evident effects of human activity in changing our climate.
There are many market-based plans for lowering emissions, but before I mention those, has your liberty been “turned over to bureaucrats†by the requirement of putting a catalytic converter on your car? By requiring scrubbers on coal-fired power plants? By forcing communities to treat sewage before dumping it into our rivers and lakes? In what ways have these and similar laws and regulations destroyed your liberty? This “liberty†rhetoric is the type of chicken-little attitude we should really be concerned about.
It’s laughable to assert that Al Gore won’t debate anyone who disagrees with him. He’s done that his whole life. If you mean Lomborg, even he—the skeptical environmentalist—agrees that human activity contributes to global warming.
Here’s a quotation from Lomborg’s latest book, Cool It: “That humanity has caused a substantial rise in atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels over the past centuries, thereby contributing to global warming, is beyond debate.†Yet for some reason, Geoff, you keep trying to debate it.
The implication that Al Gore is anti-market is bizarre. He’s on the Board of Apple, a senior advisor to Google, and the Chairman of Generation Investment Management. He’s pragmatic in his approach to this issue. It’s funny that people castigate him for getting involved. It’s like the way George Bush, who dodged Vietnam, somehow transformed himself into a patriot, while Al Gore, who actually served in Vietnam, became the anti-patriot. Of course, had we elected Gore, we wouldn’t be wasting our country’s wealth and moral standing in Iraq, but that’s a different issue.
Finally, Governor Huntsman here in Utah recently released the results of a blue-ribbon panel he convened to look into this issue. You ought to consider what they came up with.
http://www.deq.utah.gov/BRAC_Climate/final_report.htm
Among others, here is one relevant conclusion: “There is no longer any scientific doubt that the Earth’s average surface temperature is increasing and that changes in ocean temperature, ice and snow cover, and sea level are consistent with this global warming.
#94 I believe in working toward a consensus on issues, so I’ll address what I see as hopeful signs in your post.
1) There is more than “some evidence,” as I mentioned, and it is both slower and faster than some scientists predicted simply because there is a range of predictions. But this year’s melting of the Arctic ice was more extensive than anyone projected, and the oceans’ ability to absorb more CO2 is declining faster than anyone projected.
2) The effect of human activity is only “unknown” in the sense that we don’t know exactly all the mechanism, but there is a scientific consensus, even among Al Gore’s critics, that human activity is changing the climate. And there is plenty humans can do to accelerate the changes, unless we modify our behavior. But I agree, we don’t know whether we have already reached a tipping point beyond which we are powerless to undo the effects of our activity.
3) Wow. Teddy Roosevelt? The Al Gore of his day? The one whose designation of 16 million acres of national forest in spite of congressional opposition was the model for Bill Clinton’s designation of Utah wilderness? He set aside almost 200 million acres of land for national parks and nature preserves. He was a strong advocate of government action in environmental issues. I’ve seen nothing in your previous posts, or in your fear-mongering about government, that remotely resembles Roosevelt’s approach.
4) Here I fully agree with you. There are global warming extremists, as there are extremists in any movement. We might have different views of what is an extremist, but in principle, I agree with you here. And we also out to decry the alarmism of “liberty” extremists.
5) I don’t know what you mean by this. Certainly Roosevelt’s National Parks were not a marketplace solution. Tax cuts won’t clean the air and water, simply because you can make more money by polluting and paying taxes than you can by cleaning the air and water and saving a little on taxes. Can you give some examples of what you mean here?
6) I agree that we should choose the welfare of human beings first, but your statement here clarifies your overall approach. I say there is no fight between the planet and human beings. We are part of the planet. We are part of the ecosystems we live in. It’s the very notion that there is a fight between humans and the planet that we environmentalists are fighting against.
7) I agree that we ought not scare children, but I don’t think it’s a good idea to pretend we don’t have serious problems. Should we not tell children about the war in Iraq? Should we not tell them about internet predators? Should we not tell them not to breathe car exhaust? How about telling them not to litter? To recycle? But forget children; what about other adults? We could also have avoided “scaring” people by warning about the risks of lead poisoning, or polluted water. I think it’s counterproductive to avoid dealing with real problems.
None of Al Gore’s claims are “pure fiction.” They are projections based on available data and scientific understanding. The only thing that didn’t happen this hurricane season was that none hit the U.S., (well, Humberto did) but this season also started earlier than usual when a storm formed on May 9th. We had 2 category 5 hurricanes, one of only 4 recorded Atlantic seasons that has ever had more than one cat 5, and this was the only time ever that two cat. 5’s have hit land at cat. 5 strength.
But the link between global warming and hurricanes has not been discredited at all. The anti-climate change crowd exaggerated the claim so it could be more easily ridiculed. The IPCC actually just said that it was more likely than not that there is a human contribution to the observed trend of hurricane intensification since the 1970s, and in the future, “it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical [sea surface temperatures].”
Jonathan n, #89:
Nobody’s made an Oscar-winning movie about cancer, yet I’m deathly afraid of it and consciously take steps to mitigate the possibility for myself and my family. True, this could be partly due to a more personalized impact, but it could also be because there is actual scientific consensus that cancer kills, and that my behavior can be a direct factor in getting it and preventing it. No need for sensationalism or exaggeration there.
It’s only when you try to mix science and politics that you must lean on the crutch of sensationalism and scare tactics. Gore- to use his own words- has “played on our fears” in order to influence policy.
Gore apparently isn’t as dumb as I always thought he was- he realizes that nobody would ever go for all the social and governmental changes he advocates unless they are scared into it.
Cancer is a poor analogy for your point but a great one for my points.
For one thing, scare tactics and sensationalism are a big part of the fight against cancer. Have you not seen the warnings on cigarette packs? Or the many anti-smoking commercials, ads, and media articles? Or the frequently covered testimonials by cancer survivors about getting cancer screenings, etc? Yet despite all of these, many people still smoke and avoid screenings; hence, the efforts continue, because the “mix of science and politics” in public health demands that we continue to promote anti-cancer activities.
Fear about cancer has led to just the sort of “social and governmental changes” that you seem to think are negative, but I think most people would agree that the anti-smoking statutes and ordinances have been beneficial.
Cancer had been documented since Hippocrates and studied ever since. Yet we didn’t make much progress treating cancer until the government focused on the problem with increased funding in response to Nixon’s War on Cancer in 1971. He requested $100 million for cancer research and opened a federal cancer research center. Then Congress enacted the National Cancer Act. This is a good example of how we can improve our society and our individual lives when we “mix science and politics” in a productive way.
Of course, there are many who say the War on Cancer was a failure, that cancer has won and we shouldn’t spend any more money on it, etc. So there are always people who oppose responding to serious threats.
Jonathan N, you are a good writer and I’m glad you’ve visited our site. I have chosen not to engage you on this topic because you haven’t put forward any viewpoints that anybody can’t see from picking up the New York Times or watching TV news (or from simply scrolling up and reading the responses from people on this very post). We are all bombarded with your viewpoints all day long. Global warming is coming — quick everybody, let’s panic!
However, in the hopes you may have an open mind, I will give you some example of real-world free market solutions that I would be in favor of to deal with the global warming “problem.”
1)Tax breaks for individuals/businesses developing their own solar power/wind power and getting off the grid. I live in Miami and have a large flat roof. I would love to put in solar panels and turn off Florida Power and Light. I have actually looked into it, and a solar system to power my entire house would cost $30,000 (plus would need roughly $500/year in maintenance, repairing solar cells, adjusting things, dealing with wind damage, etc). There is no way this makes sense financially given the 15-20 year lifetime of the typical solar system. I think the federal government, if it is really interested in promoting alternate sources of energy, should give people large tax breaks, at least 50 percent amortized over the 15-year lifetime of a solar system, for buying alternate energy systems. The same thing should apply to wind power, geo-thermal, etc. Businesses that install wind and solar systems should get large, significant tax breaks, with very, very large tax breaks if they figure out ways to get off the grid altogether and become energy self-sufficient. Imagine the huge innovations in solar/wind technology that would take place if we gave incentives for companies to come up with their own solutions (presumably some of them would turn around and market these solutions).
2)The federal government should allow drilling in Alaska, Florida, etc because it is a national priority that we rely less on foreign oil. Significant domestic oil is available, but liberals in Congress consistently block access to it. This has to stop.
3)Nuclear power development should be encouraged through tax incentives. France supplies 80 percent of its power through nuclear — we are less than 10 percent. It is a security priority that we become energy self-sufficient, and nuclear has been a perfectly safe alternative for the most part.
4)People who buy hybrid vehicles or other efficient cars that get more than 40 cents/gallon should get tax breaks on those cars.
There are probably a lot more suggestions along these lines. The point is, we need less government interference, not more. We need lower taxes, not higher. We need to provide incentives for the marketplace to resolve issues, not for government to get more involved. The government is usually the problem, not the solution.
Jonathan, I hardly consider warnings on cigarette packs and testimonials from cancer survivors as sensationalism or scare tactics. I have disagreed in almost all instances of science and politics mixing on the topic of cancer- most of which have targeted Big Tobacco. Lung cancer is just one type of many. Pray tell, where are the scare tactics with pancreatic or, say, hodgekins lymphoma?
The cancer analogy works just fine for my point. Nixon’s war on cancer didn’t threaten our nation’s economy, national security, or sovereignty. It didn’t rob me of any liberties and it didn’t involve the government poking it’s nose into my daily life.
Tossman, how would you define sensationalism or scare tactics then? I assume you don’t consider the warnings or testimonials to be scare tactics because you think they’re “true.” But many smokers don’t believe them, just like you don’t believe the scientific consensus about global warming. And for many years there were scientists who fought against the scientific consensus on smoking and cancer, just like the dwindling number of scientists who don’t believe in global warming.
What do you mean when you say you disagree in almost all instances of science and politics mixing? How do you distinguish between those with which you agree and those with which you disagree?
More specifically, are you saying you disapprove of cancer research? You disapprove of cancer screening, and publicity about cancer screening, and other government efforts to educate the public about cancer?
There isn’t a need for “scare tactics” with respect to cancers that we can’t prevent. No amount of change in lifestyle will prevent pancreatic or hodgekins lymphoma, so there’s no point to “sounding the alarm” to raise public consciousness of prevention programs for these cancers. Although some of this does go on to generate support for cancer research in these areas, too.
Plenty of people disagree with you about Nixon’s war on cancer. The billions of dollars spent have greatly impacted our nation’s economy, etc. Most “liberty” advocates also object to high taxes, of which billions has been spent on cancer research. And if you think the government didn’t poke its nose into your daily life, its only because you either don’t smoke or don’t own or work at a restaurant, convenience store, or other public establishment, don’t run an airline, drive a bus, etc. Or even work in a building subject to the nonsmoking laws.
What I hear you saying is that, even though there was a scientific consensus linking smoking and cancer, the government should not have done anything about it. Don’t put warnings on cigarette packs. Don’t ban advertising. Don’t ban smoking itself in public places. And certainly don’t fund anti-cancer research that’s based on the scientific consensus because that would be mixing science and politics. Is that what you’re saying?
If so, then I concede that you’re at least consistent.
What I hear you saying is that, even though there was a scientific consensus linking smoking and cancer, the government should not have done anything about it. Depends entirely on what you mean by government “doing” something about it.
Don’t put warnings on cigarette packs. That’s fine. Doesn’t trample on my freedom or hurt me economically.
Don’t ban advertising. I don’t necessarily have a problem with that either.
Don’t ban smoking itself in public places. Depends. Public buildings, ok. Private buildings, hell no. Public places outdoors, no.
And certainly don’t fund anti-cancer research that’s based on the scientific consensus. Last time I checked, funding cancer research 1) Does not significantly effect the economy, and 2) Does not impede my freedom as a business or a private citizen.
The key is as little government imposition as possible. The government’s role should be (a la Geoff’s comments above) should be based on positive incentive, not policy.
#99 I think this is an important discussion. I hope I have an open mind–I’ve handled environmental cases as a lawyer on both sides and I’ve visited environmentally sensitive areas on every continent. I have two degrees in agriculture, which is one of the pressure points of environmental issues. I certainly don’t need to read the NY Times to know about these issues.
1) Tax breaks. I agree that tax breaks can be beneficial. However, there are already tax breaks. I first put a solar water heater on our home 20 years ago and the tax credit offset the cost. But I suspect most people on this list objected to Hillary Clinton’s proposal to give every American $1,000 for an IRA; how could the country afford to give millions of Americans $15,000 each, even if it is amortized? Not to mention, you’d have the philosophical objection about the government interfering with the free market. Besides, solar panel technology is advancing so quickly that it wouldn’t make sense to subsidize a multi-billion dollar industry to make today’s solar panels, any more than it would make sense to buy every American a laptop and expect them to keep it for 15-20 years. This is one area where I think some additional government research money should be allocated, but I think it’s premature to “bet the farm” on today’s technology.
2) The oil in Alaska appreciates every minute we don’t drill it. It’s like money in the bank. More accurately, it’s our children’s inheritance. I wouldn’t want to consume it now any more than I’d take the kid’s inheritance to go joyriding down in Rio. I think this is more than an environmental issue; it’s a fundamental moral issue and we owe it to future generations to both stop burning so much oil now, and to save some for them.
3) I agree with you that we should adopt many more aspects of European society, but nuclear power is extremely difficult. For one thing, every power plant consumes billions of gallons of water. We just don’t have the water resources to do it, quite apart from the possibly more serious issue that we don’t have any place to store the nuclear waste. The waste is already piling up in temporary storage facilities all around the country, and it’s probably leaking into the underground water supplies up in Hanford as we speak. And I don’t think Americans are yet willing to pay the French for their technology, which is superior to ours. I’m all for it (I went to France on my mission), but I can see why it probably will never happen. And, BTW, the federal government spends as much on nuclear energy research as it does on all other types of energy (solar, wind, hydrogen, etc.) combined. Which I think is due to the relative lobbying power.
4) I did get a tax break when I bought my hybrid. But the government limited the rebates so that now if you buy a Toyota hybrid, there’s no rebate left. This was intended to “protect” American manufacturers who didn’t have the foresight (or the government regulations to force them) to develop hybrids of their own. Note that all of the fuel-efficient cars we have now come from countries where the government imposed higher fuel-efficiency requirements than our own “free-market” government did.
Now Geoff, I greatly enjoy your blogs when I get a chance to read them. But when you say something such as “the government is usually the problem, not the solution,” I think you need to read a little more of the NY Times or watch the news, because that’s pure political rhetoric. It’s meaningless.
I have difficulty understanding where the anti-government rhetoric comes from. There’s Rush Limbaugh, for example, whose entire career depends on government (regulation of air waves, copyright protection, etc.); he just objects to aspects of government that he thinks don’t directly benefit him.
But while I do agree that we should provide incentives for the marketplace to resolve issues, the second clause of your sentence contradicts the first. Who provides the incentives if not the government?
I’m just hoping through this conversation that you will also have an open mind and rethink some of this. These environmental issues (as you will see in Hong Kong) are not issues for single nations, and certainly not for individual companies. The smog you will breathe there blows all the way to Alaska and California. The ocean you fly over has vast swaths of plastic waste, larger than Texas. The coral reefs underneath are dying. The fish species we depend on are vanishing.
I think we made a huge mistake when we elected Bush in 2000, and not only because of Iraq, but because he has done everything possible to benefit the oil industry in the short term, at the expense of developing alternative energy. He has pushed the U.S. behind other nations, including China, in developing these alternatives. He’s borrowed heavily from the Chinese and Saudi governments so we can maintain our current high-consumption lifestyle. He has resisted the scientific consensus on global warming much as the tobacco industry resisted the consensus on smoking and cancer.
But beyond all that (and here’s something you won’t find in the NY Times), I think we as LDS have an ethical duty to ourselves and the rest of the world to demonstrate a better way to live. Rather than emulate the rest of the world in the pursuit of more individual wealth, we ought to focus on provident living and other values, including protecting and improving our environment. Our basic doctrine involves community efforts–yes, government. So we ought to become part of the solution.
Finally, one aspect of Mormonism that has always appealed to me is our view that we embrace all truth, whether religious or scientific. I’m continually surprised when I hear of LDS people who don’t believe in evolution, for example. But when it comes to global warming, why reject the evidence that is all around us? Why pretend either that there is no problem or that humans don’t have anything to do with it? It’s just a puzzling attitude that I can’t reconcile with what I believe.
#102 Well, I don’t see how you can distinguish between public and private buildings with your approach. Either way, you still have the government “interfering” with the right to smoke. Your distinction is arbitrary, not principled.
I don’t think you checked on how many billions of dollars of tax money have gone into cancer research, but is that your criteria for what is acceptable government action or not? How much it costs?
And if you’re criteria is how much it impedes your freedom, how do you distinguish among government polices? I presume you don’t object to traffic laws, even though they greatly impede your “freedom.” Or do you object to them, too? Do you also object to having the Agriculture Dept. inspect the meat you buy at the store? Do you object to motor vehicle emissions standards?
I’m asking because there are quasi-libertarians who object to almost all government, until you start asking about specific aspects of government that benefit them. Rush Limbaugh, as I’ve mentioned, is the classic example. But what I’m hearing you say is not that you disbelieve the scientific consensus about global warming, just that you don’t want the government to do anything about it.
Your terminology doesn’t make sense. What is an incentive if not a policy?
Jonathan, if you’re going to go Jehovah’s Witness on me, I’m game. But as long as you’re using the lawyerspeak to twist my words, let’s go ahead and clarify some things:
–I don’t care if you are a danger to yourself. Where I start caring is when you become a danger to others or impede their liberties. Citizens are free to smoke. It’s when this behavior threatens the health of others or becomes a public nuisance that government is justified in stepping in. Constitutional ethics and economic impacts are factors that should weigh heavily in deciding what steps government should take when deciding a course of action.
–When I say ‘public’ buildings, I mean any building the public spends time in- anything from courthouses to libraries to malls. Private buildings would be places like bars, clubs, and restaurants. Government can and should intervene in the former, never in the latter.
–One of my criteria for acceptable government action is the economic effects the policy(s) would cause. I don’t mind that billions of dollars have gone into cancer research, since the economic impact has been insignificant. Were the U.S. to enact Kyoto-like protocols in order battle a scientific theory, the economic impact would be devastating. There is a mathematical consensus (you might say ‘the debate is over’) that such policies would significantly slow wage growth, widen the rich-poor gap by eliminating the middle class, severely increase deficit spending, and would necessitate higher taxes. Basically, it would kill the economy- all in the name of maybe preventing the earth from warming a fraction of a degree.
–I don’t like traffic laws, but I am ok with them because 1) they historically have reduced traffic-related injury and death, and 2) they are state and local laws, not Federal. Big difference. It is the Federal Government I object to the most because of its insurmountable, universal power. I can move to a different city or state if I don’t like their laws.
–I believe in global warming. I believe it does indeed happen from time to time. The fact that the popular term has morphed from ‘global warming’ to the vague blanket phrase ‘climate change’ detracts from the credibility of your ‘scientific consensus.’
–I do not believe that there is a true scientific consensus concluding that 1) man is responsible for major climate change, 2) man can prevent, reverse, or fix it, 3) the actual change occurring will be as devastating as Al Gore says it will be.
–Given the above statements and the political motives behind so much of the hysteria, it will take much more to convince me that we should go to such extremes to combat climate change.
Jehovah’s Witness? I’m not sure what that means. đŸ™‚
– Everyone agrees that constitutional ethics (principles) and economic impacts weigh heavily in government policy decisions; they already do.
– How would you distinguish between a shopping mall and a restaurant? Or a library and a bookstore?
– What is a mathematical consensus? Do you mean a consensus of economists? If so, there is no such consensus. In fact, a stronger argument can be made that our failure to control emissions is making us increasingly uncompetitive. Most obviously, this is the reason we import more cars. The Japanese, Koreans and Europeans have governments that impose stricter emissions and efficiency requirements, so they are replacing the American car manufacturers around the world, and even here in the U.S. It’s our own refusal to use less oil that has forced us to: send billions of dollars to OPEC nations (around $500 million/day); dump additional billions to invade Iraq; and borrow billions of dollars back from OPEC nations to maintain our wasteful lifestyle. Our currency is collapsing against the currencies of the Kyoto signatories. The argument that the Bush approach of status quo makes our economy stronger has no basis in fact; instead, we’ve accumulated trillions in debt to the Kyoto nations. How could this be if Kyoto is so economically devastating?
– I don’t follow your point about climate change vs global warming. What would changing the term have to do with the credibility of the science?
– I’m not sure what you mean by a “true” scientific consensus, but there is more scientific consensus on this issue than there is on most government policy, especially compared with the realm of economics, but also even with respect to cancer and other medical research, which you support. I’m not clear why you hold global warming to a higher standard than other areas of government action.
– I’ve no doubt that it will take much more to convince you. I’m just surprised that it takes convincing at all. Even for purely economic reasons, it seems intuitive that we should all be working to reduce our reliance on oil and other fossil fuels; that we should pursue clean, renewable energy sources; and that our current systems are both unsustainable and self-destructive. We’re oil junkies, and even though our dealers keep raising the price, we persuade ourselves that all is well, that to change the system would impair our “liberty,” and that we need someone else to persuade us by even more overwhelming evidence than what we already have that we need to change.
I had a great answer for you, Jonathan, but my comment was apparantly “invalid”. No offensive words or anything, just invalid. Dang this software.
Geoff,
This is embarrassing, man. You’re not even arguing here. I know you’re capable of reasoned, substantive debate, but this isn’t just bad argumentation. You sound like what an SNL writer would write in an attempt to make a conservative blowhard look as foolish as possible. “I’m not going to engage your points because they sound too much like people I already don’t agree with??!!” Did you really just channel Will Farrel mocking George Bush with your reflexive mistrust of “the TV news”??!!! Are all the gloom and doomers really wrong because they don’t realize that a bazillion jobs would be lost and the entire world thrust into irreversible poverty if there’s even one iota more of government-forced, freedom-hating, dictatorial environmental regulation? Since the irony of my subvocalization might have been lost in the typing, let me just emphasize that I was attempting to point out intense irony with my last question.
Reread my comment (79) from before this thread died the first time and engage that thought experiment a little. I know you can imagine how ridiculous and infuriating the crap you’re pulling here can be to people who try to make substantive points to bolster their arguments. Your practical suggestions are fine. You’re (non)argument that they’re all that’s needed leaves a bit to be desired. There’s not a single line of reasoning or (non)substantive evidence you’ve presented here that couldn’t be cut and pasted into decades old debate about whether or not nicotine in cigarette smoke really causes cancer or whether or not there were appropriate non-market-based solutions that wouldn’t destroy our precious freedom.
Get in the game or shut down this abortion of a thread.
End rant.
Brad, last warning: future comments that involve ad hominems will be deleted. I’m being charitable because I know you’re a good guy, but ad hominems are not necessary and don’t convince anybody.
Geoff,
I think you’re a good guy too, which is probably why I assumed you would take my unjustifiably angry ranting standing up. I’m not sure I know what ad hominem you’re referencing here, though. I mean, I know what ad hominem is, in theory, but I assume it’s something more than just aggressive rhetoric. It can’t have been the individuals I mentioned–I love Will Ferrel and adore Tina Fay. If there was any ad hominem there it was ad hominem compliments. I was making a substantive comparison. It also just happened to be kind of jerky. So, if you mean that being a jerk is not necessary and does not convince anybody, then I agree wholeheartedly. FWIW, I came this close to emailing you with an apology for hastily posting such nastiness and suggesting myself that you remove it. I hope, however, that you’ll look past the meanness and engage the substance–the part about your (non)arguments on this thread (as compared with your typically quite substantive methods of argumentation)–since I still stand by the substance.
Geoff, #109 is a little disingenuous. This whole thread has been filled with ad hominems from the very beginning when you linked to the Lorne Gunter opinion piece in the National Post (originally a Conrad Black paper, before he was convicted of obstruction of justice). Gunter likes to strike a Geoff B.-style pose of the former liberal who has seen the light:
Despite his current right-of-centre views, Lorne is a former chief of staff to a minister in the last Trudeau government. He is currently the editorial director of the Canadian Centre for Libertarian Studies, a member of the editorial board of conservativeforum.org and the incoming president of Civitas – a society for conservative and libertarian academics, think-tankers, lobbyists and journalists.
This doesn’t stop him, however, from childish name-calling. He thinks that serious scientists who happen not to agree with his views can be grouped as a bunch of fanatics who he mockingly calls “warmers”.
Then, in comment 2, you make the following unsupported claim:
“because Al Gore has been predicting disaster since 1992, and it hasn’t happened.”
In fact, Al Gore has been talking about the issue since long before 1992, and he has never predicted that the disaster would have happened by now. The predictions he has made are of disasters in decades to come, but the intermediate predictions have been validated.
As Clark said in comment 27:
At this point it is established science. Realistically it has been for about a decade. I was a big skeptic in the 90’s but the evidence is there.
But instead of addressing any of Clark or Kristine’s arguments, you come up with a new list of questions for them, which they patiently answer. Kyle R. comes along and mentions the Oxford Report, and you never address it (just as in the past you have not addressed the findings of the IPCC but prefer to link to caricatures). Instead you bring up personal anecdotes and say that you respect Kyle as a scientist, but you still don’t believe any of his arguments.
In 105, Tossman states:
Given the above statements and the political motives behind so much of the hysteria, it will take much more to convince me that we should go to such extremes to combat climate change.
I’m beginning to think that there isn’t anything that possibly could convince the two of you, and so I can easily understand Brad’s frustration.
#86 ‘Gore gets the cold shoulder’
Geoff ol’ pal. I’m becoming slightly concerned about your approach to information. This is the second time you’ve pounced with triumphant glee on a brief news snippet about a dubious statement or report and simply thrown it out as proof that global warming is not to be taken seriously, without in the least troubling yourself to care how valid the story is or investigate it in any way.
I’d have more interest in discussing global warming seriously with you because of your intelligence if this intelligence wasn’t so fatally undermined by what appears to be an extremely lazy and sloppy attitude to evidence.
Dr. Gray is a fine scientist in his field – hurricanes and ocean surface precipitation – but he has NEVER published any peer reviewed research on the subject of global warming. In other words, he has not yet undertaken any proper research which connects his own discipline to the existing research on global warming or climate change. He has merely used the fact that he is an expert on a global warming related subject to make blanket statements about global warming in general.
You yourself should realise that this is the scientific equivalent of taking pot-shots as opposed to proper hunting. If Dr. Grey is serious about his statements on global warming he should back them up with research or at least a detailed, explanatory position paper. But he has not done this and does not seem to want to do this. He prefers to just make throw-away statements to students and reporters.
Is that sufficiently scientific to a mind like yours that you’re happy to consider that somehow ‘proof’ of your position? If so please say as much, so at least I’ll know what level of seriousness to attach to your apparent interest in the subject.
The closest Dr Gray has come to defending his position is in a meeting paper produced last year which woefully fails to back up his position.
Anyone interested can read it – and a proper discussion of it – here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/
Thanks all for participating in this discussion. I think we’ve gotten some interesting inputs from many different perspectives. Fair-minded readers can come to their own conclusions. It will be interesting to look back at this issue 10, 15, 20 years from now and see where we are. I started hearing about global warming as a problem in the 1980s, and all alarmist claims that were made then have not come true. I hope we have learned enough not to take the alarmist crowd seriously based on history. But my instincts tell me results will once again be manipulated to turn slight global warming (a natural cycle of the Earth) into a crisis to justify worldwide government and the restriction of personal freedom. I for one will fight it to the end (non-violently).
All the best to all our readers!
Pingback: » Climategate: it’s worse than you ever imagined The Millennial Star
I have looked at eco-friendly alternatives, so far I have installed solar panels on my home but while looking for a electric car I find the cost doesnt justify it for me. While I am passionate about making green choices whenever possible it is up to people like you and I to spread awareness and let the companies know there is a demand. Your website looks popular and I think you can help influence society with your insight and eco tips. by the way I found your site by searching » Global Warming: you can calm down now The Millennial Star and you were the first result. So I think your website is a good platform to discuss ideas that are thought provoking and influence your readers to go green. – Good luck with your site, you deserve it – Bill