Global Warming: Hysteria Vs. Skepticism
world
Posts: 266
Global climate change is happening, we all know it, its been going on since the dawn of time. It seems to me that people love the hysteria of it all. The "sky is falling" shouting. Recently, more discussion are taking place about the pied piper Al Gore. Al has never once been included in a debate about global climate change with any scientists who disaggrees with him. Al wants us to radically change our civilization at which the U.N. estimates will cost 553 trillion dollars. Wouldnt healthy debate on the topic be the smart thing to do first if you really cared about the globe?
Bjørn Lomborg who wrote "The Skeptical Environmentalist" to end the hysteria and ended up being brought to court by environmentals that disagreed with him. All charges were dropped against Lomborg. He challenges topics like Al's version of Antarctica which shows that it is warming drastically. Lomborg points out that 98% of Antartica has actually lowered in temperature over the past 35 years. That only a small section has been warming drastically and dramatically with great news footage of ice falling into the ocean.
Has anyone else here both seen Al's movie and read Bjørn's book? I find the book to be way more thoughtfull and less dramatic.
Bjørn Lomborg who wrote "The Skeptical Environmentalist" to end the hysteria and ended up being brought to court by environmentals that disagreed with him. All charges were dropped against Lomborg. He challenges topics like Al's version of Antarctica which shows that it is warming drastically. Lomborg points out that 98% of Antartica has actually lowered in temperature over the past 35 years. That only a small section has been warming drastically and dramatically with great news footage of ice falling into the ocean.
Has anyone else here both seen Al's movie and read Bjørn's book? I find the book to be way more thoughtfull and less dramatic.
Chicago '98, Noblesville '00, East Troy '00, Chicago '00, Champaign '03, Chicago '03, Chicago1 '06, Chicago2 '06, Milwaukee '06, Chicago1 '09, and Chicago2 '09
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
-Enoch Powell
I have seen the movie, but have not read the book, although it is on my list. I am skeptical when people state 'specific claims' about global warming, eg- In 48 years global warming will result in a .35 m sea rise, or when people suggest that a particular weather event is due to global warming. That type of claim when stated too frequently dulls peoples senses to future claims of potential environmental catostrophe.
However I have seen enough evidence to convince me that humans are changing the climate, and we should be addressing that issue with a more effective aproach then we currently are. We know that we are increasing greenhouse gas levels, and we know that increased greenhouse gases will cause warming, but I believe there is some doubt over the degree of warming.
I am aware that weather patterns are cyclic, but that in itself is not evidence against human induced warming. It just makes the degree of warming more difficult to measure.
Regardless, when you way up the costs of doing something about global warming, with the potential costs of global warming if we do not do enough to address it, then it is an ideal case for applying the precautionary principle. In other words, do a little more now, to ensure it is a little better later.
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
A fun book I did enjoy was:
Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media by Patrick J. Michaels.
I am almost 90% sure that global warming will cause a calamity and 10% convinced that it's not happening the days it's so cold I freeze my balls off. (they are in a jar thawing).
I think the time for debate is passed. The problem with global warming is that it's too slow of a process so we think we have time to debate. We can't just flip the switch with laws and then everything will be OK. We need to act now to first reduce the amount of CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere and then figure out a way to REMOVE the excessive CO2 and return it to the ground.
We can't wait until more of the Antartic ice shelf breaks off and people in Florida are in ankle deep water. If we waited until we had that "proof" Florida will be neck deep in water before we will be able to start to stop it.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Yes the current phrase is "Abrupt Climate Change" but that's a political redefinition in an attemp to factor in extreem cold in leiu of a global warming trend that the global warming people can't explain (yet).
I don't care what they call it, I don't even care if scientists can 100% explain it. What I do know is that ice shelfs are breaking off, the polar ice cap may not exist in 30 years, and sea levels are rising because of it.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I have not read Bjørn Lomborg's book. Nor do I intend to waste my time reading about climate change from a business professor with a political science degree.
The court ruling you mentioned determined that his book was scientifically dishonest, but that Lomborg himself was not guilty because he had no expertise in the fields he was writing about. The thoughtful book was cited for:
Fabrication of data
Selective discarding of unwanted results
Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods
Distorted interpretation of conclusions
Plagiarism
Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results
Here is some documentation (by a biologist) of errors in his book:
http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/
Patrick J. Michaels is on the payroll of coal and oil interests.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=2242565&page=1
Yes, they are:
"Internal documents show that White House official Philip A Cooney, who once led oil industry fight against limits on greenhouse gases, has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming"
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10710F6385C0C7B8CDDAF0894DD404482
The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?ei=5090&en=51c46d7689bee520&ex=1296190800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
Here is a joint statement from various science academies around the world addressing the issue of global climate change. This statement was co-signed by: Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil) Royal Society of Canada Chinese Academy of Sciences Academie des Sciences (France) Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher (Germany) Indian National Science Academy Accademia dei Lincei (Italy) Science Council of Japan Russian Academy of Sciences Royal Society (United Kingdom) National Academy of Sciences (United States)
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
It's funny how people supportive of Lomborg are mostly economists and social studies scientists whereas his detractors are mostly medical and nature scientists. It seems each group has a different view of the priorities humankind should be dealing with.
a clear indication that you do not understand the fundamental basis of climate change ...
anyhoo - some people tend to read stuff from certain sources ... it's too bad that issues like this have to be fought with propaganda wars ... anyhoo - i am reading an article today in Business Week on the shift in corporations to be more eco and socially responsible ... anybody who's claiming that addressing climate change will cost us gazillion of dollars is definitely playing the "Hysteria" game ...
just look at the headlines ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/news/
at least 10 dead due to wind related events ... what are lives worth?
This has been researched, and whilst more study is needed, it is thought that the effects of water vapour from a complete shift to fuel cell vehicles would be negligible.
If your article is indicative of global warming, when wasnt global warming happening, since there have been extreme weather events throughout history?
did you open the link? ... it has long been hypothesized that one of the impacts of climate change would be an increase in the amount of extreme weather events ... the link showed a summary of recent weather related stories ... how is that inappropriate?
here's another link for you ...
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/172778
A further point is that I believe an environmentalist should be skeptical, (but not live their life in denial), and base their concerns/actions on scientific evidence. I have not read Lomborg's book so am unaware if just being skeptical or is actually in denial.
Although there are exceptions, environmentalism without science too often turns into an animal rights campaign. Whilst there is nothing wrong with animal rights, it is not environmentalism or conservation.
I just think pointing to every storm and saying "global warming caused it, we must do something now" is part of the hysteria that drowns out rational debate on what steps are needed to address this.
first of all - we still have people who do not believe nor understand what the impacts of climate change are ... secondly, like i said above, climate change will cause more extreme weather events, like what is happening now in europe - is this particular storm directly caused by greenhouse gases? - can't say for sure but when you look at the bigger picture, there is definitely a pattern of cause and effect ...
and lastly, what is the purpose of your post if not to put doubt into the fact that the planet is now seeing the consequences of our action?
actually, i believe he puts one of these posts up once in a while and when it gets shot down a la sunday silence ... he disappears ...
Oh btw the disappearing part, does it involve magic? I love magic!
<Loudly clapping and giggling uncontrollably> More magic!!
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
either theory is unproven, the earth has gone through so many climate shifts before humans even walked the earth...i dont believe we are causeing much of a shift.
Think about all the gases that are relesed naturally through volcanic eruptions and such
well put!
and polaris, thanks for the link....http://www.thestar.com/News/article/172778. some good info
Yes, the world has gone through many climate shifts before. No one is disputing this, the differnce is that there has never been a species on this earth that has the ability and the record to disturb the environment to the extent as humans. Not even close. Never before has this amount of greenhouse gasses through the actions of a species before.
Although volcanic and geological events do in fact release greenhouse gasses, the majority of gasses released is nothing more than water vapour. There are spikes in the temperature record that do account for major geological events, but compared to the accumulated amount of human produced green house gasses, they do not alter the atmsopheric composition in anywhere near the same amount as humans.
Lastly, do you disagree with the greenhouse effect and greenhouse gasses or do you think that is a load of hot air too? Excuse the pun
yikes...