Why I'm fed up with the global warming debate
I've had it. Watching years of endless debate over global warming play out without a final denouement, why not face the hard truth that we're going about it all wrong? Both sides invariably trot out reams of competing statistics or quote scientific tomes to support their positions in a conversation that goes stale fast.
But I've got a better idea. If you could sit down with a big global warming skeptic like United States Sen. James Inhofe, or even with President Bush, forget the "woe is us routine." Instead, why not appeal to their capitalist greed--and I don't mean that in a pejorative sense. You don't have to believe in global warming to agree that fossil fuel emissions aren't doing any good for the air we breathe. But the sharp disagreements flare up when the topic turns programmatic. That is, how do you go about the cleanup without wrecking the economy? Good question, but unless the smart money is wrong, the answer will make fortunes for a lot of people.
EDF President Fred Krupp
(Credit: Environmental Defense Fund)While the pace of investment in Web 2.0 start-ups is waning, clean tech is booming. Venture capitalists sank more than $3 billion into the sector in 2007, and they'll break that record this year.
The environmental movement got hip to that idea awhile ago, making the right calculation that appealing to business' self-interest would pay dividends later on. Apropos, I was reminiscing on Friday with Fred Krupp, who heads the Environmental Defense Fund. Time was when the EDF's informal motto was, "Sue the bastards." But Krupp, who joined EDF in 1984, has become a big proponent of working with business on this issue.
Call it constructive engagement, if you will, but he's making progress even though there remains much skepticism among business interests. But in the last year, a number of heavy-hitter CEOs have made strong statements about climate change, including Jeff Immelt from General Electric, Rick Wagoner at General Motors, and Jim Rogers at Duke Energy. We're not exactly talking about Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin here. These are members of the U.S. corporate aristocracy, and if these boys are singing a new tune, change is in the air. Check out the United States Climate Action Partnership, which is an alliance between big-time companies and climate and environmental groups teaming up to support a market-driven approach to climate protection. At the same time, there's a pending bill in Congress, S. 2191, better known as America's Climate Security Act, designed to help reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
I wouldn't exaggerate the swing of the political pendulum--there's still a lot of resistance--but as the Bush administration finishes out its term, there's suddenly more movement on this front than at any time in the last eight years. I'll be publishing a Q&A on Saturday with Krupp where he talks in more detail about technology's likely role. In the meantime, here's the nagging question I still can't answer: Is this issue so bound up with interest-group politics that hopes for a national movement are just a pipe dream? The debate seemingly goes on and on without resolution. Now that there's new hope for real change just over the horizon, I hope we're not about to get let down again.
Now it's your turn to weigh in.
Charles Cooper has covered technology and business for more than 25 years. Before joining CNET News, he worked at the Associated Press, Computer & Software News, Computer Shopper, PC Week, and ZDNet. E-mail Charlie. 
Our economy is headed to the toilet because our gas prices are going through the roof because we have increased competition for energy resources from China and India and groups like the environmental defense crowd and other lawsuit happy people have made it impossible to expand or build new refineries to meet the demand for gasoline in this country. They also keep us from drilling for more oil that we control. Maybe if these uber liberals would let us drill for our own oil we would not have to be in places like Iraq. But I digress.
I have no problem with conservation, but when it is sold as you are saving the planet, you lose me, because I know that we have no ability to impact the planet in any meaningful way. You want clean technology to take off? Build a Corvette that gets 50 mpg and still performs like a Corvette and not cost $100k and people will buy it. You will not have to offer special incentives or subsidies. When you try and take people's vehicles and replace them with the equivalent of a golf cart or outlaw their light bulbs, all in the name of saving the planet, you will not win the debate. Sorry...
But there are advantages of less dependence of foreign oil, cleaner environment, etc...
Now here is my biggest problem. Get the government out of it. This has been so politicized. I would be a much open to change if we could get the government out it. The fact that we can longer use incandescent light bulbs because the government says we can't is absurd.
How do you make the change? Look at the fur industry. Years ago, fur coats were he rage, but animal rights people got involved and now it very rare to see a fur coat. Did the government get involved? No! If the vast majority of the population wants use the funny looking light bulbs, great! If there are a few hold outs so be it. Stop making this a political issue and make it an environmental issue and you will have support on the left and the right.
on the History and Discovery channels. Have you seen the melting of glaciers in the North Pole. If they continue to melt as they have been doing, they will be gone in 23 years. Have you seen the documentation of natives standing in fear of their land being covered with flooding. The flooding is destroying the only thing that they know. Fishing for a living along with land use that is quickly disappearing. Having you seen the Polar Bears looking at their habitat disappear? The bears are losing the fish that they need to survive. Why have the Polar Bears resorted to cannilibism? If you don't understand and agree with my reasoning, I have very little hope for you.
So please tell me the time period of stable "global temperatures" that is the "normal state" for the Earth.... Was in 70 million years ago when dinosaurs roamed Canada? Or 70,000 years ago when the Sahara was a jungle? Or was in 150,000 years ago during an Ice Age? How about 2000 years ago when grapes were grown in England?
Please don't confuse the debate on "Global Warming" by claiming that the rest of us want dirty air, water and polluted land. The argument is over the extent of human affect and the cause of global warming... which stopped 6 years ago and global temperatures dropped 1 degree this year negating the whole increase that has been cited by the global warming crowd.
The scientific community agrees that the climate is warming, and that human emissions (livestock, transportation, industry...) can, will, and probably have already contributed to this.
The main reason to not cut back on emissions is to save money. The main reason to cut back on emissions is to prevent the destruction of life on earth as we know it.
Ask yourself how much of a selfish fool you really are.
The earth hasn't warmed in 10 years. 10 years, my friend, despite green house gases going up, up, up. The correlation factor between CO2 and global mean temp is low. Statistically very, very, very poor. If the models were at all accurate, there is no way that a trend like this could happen. Remember, the predictions are DIRE, the rise in temperature dramatic. Thus 10 years of no rise does NOT FIT THE MODEL. This is the same model (or models) that are being used to predict a grim future...
The problem is, you haven't studied it, you don't know, yet you are willing to condemn anyone who doesn't agree with you. People like you, who want to try to shame everyone out of discussion by calling them Nazis, are dangerous. You haven't bothered to educate yourself, and threatened, you back into a corner and make claims like "everyone else believes" and other such non-scientific nonsense.
The scientific community does NOT agree with you. Most have been silent in the past because they never thought this stupid fraud would get this far. Hundreds of scientists who were consulted, and then ignored, by the UN wrote open letters to the UN and the world REFUTING the findings in their report. Many are only now speaking up because they are realizing that the global warming alarmists are about to do real damage to civilization.
You are the fool my friend. Not selfish, self righteous.
I agree that Global Warming is happening but not because of CO2. It's the sun! It's the sun! It's the sun!
There are so many articles out there on this. This is a good one.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22835
Here is a scientist that disagrees with you too. Is Harvard University a
foolish university.
Dr Sallie Baliunas at the Harvard College Observatory in Massachusetts, concluded that during the 20th century, earth went through a cycle of natural climatic change. According to her data, from 1900 to 1940 the planet warmed slightly, then cooled from 1940 until 1970, then warmed up again from 1970 onwards. Given that 80% of the world's carbon dioxide emissions have been produced since 1940, the expected effect, if carbon dioxide was causing global warming, would be higher temperatures not lower, she said.
Dr Baliunas's data also concluded that the period of warming between 1900 and 1940 must have been due to natural causes, most likely increased sunlight hitting the earth's surface, since carbon dioxide emissions were negligible at the time. The evidence, she said, pointed to variations in the sun's brightness being the cause of the planet's warming up, not carbon dioxide.
Mark Twain once said. "Its better to keep ones mouth shut and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
Go to any university, and the students who are most vocal and activist about global warming are those who are not majoring in any scientific field. They are artists and writers and others who can't comprehend the science behind global warming, yet swear to high heaven that they are right. It's not a coincidence. Frauds of this nature have always been well received by those without scientific knowledge or understanding to question them. It doesn't matter if it's snake oil cures for diseases, bizarre religious offshoots, or any other pseudo intellectual clap trap, those who follow it en masse are not educated in a way they can understand, much less refute, what they are being told. But they are made to feel a part of something, congratulated for caring, etc.
It is why so many hollywood types are so into these causes. Most have no education of any measure, no grasp on reality, no connection to a community, etc.
If you think I'm being harsh, I'm not. I think I'm being kind, because I haven't claimed them to be stupid or evil. I give them the benefit of the doubt.
But only a non-scientist would believe that there is a "scientific consensus" on man made global warming. Only someone who never bothered to look into it and wouldn't understand it if they tried would believe that even a majority of scientists agree on this issue.
But the author, like so many other journalists, take it as a given because "that's what they heard from their friends" and then dismiss anyone who disagrees, no matter how much knowledge they may have on the subject.
It's sad, the sham is going to cost the western world billions, and the real concerns are more pressing pollution issues, the worst offenders being in Asia, the same area being given a partial "pass" on the global warming front...
?A lie told often enough becomes truth? Vladimir Lenin.
The only ones benefiting from the current hysteria are the global warming hucksters like Al Gore who receive a nobel prize for nothing but shaking down companies for money just as Jesse Jackson has been doing on the racial front for years. That is probably where Al got the idea since he has never had an original one in his life.
There is nothing wrong with being more energy efficient and green as long as we do not continue to allow ourselves to become green while continuing to export jobs as a result.
the IPCC report was a sham, a complete bunking of the scientific community, and should never have recived any of the acceptance in the public eye that it did. Global warming, as religion, is an insult to anybodys intelegence.
Somehow Global warming has become a religion that cannot be debated in a public setting. I cannot - for want of a better example - debate with a priest about the importance of communion, or the reason sunday is held sacred. These are religious ideals that stand as firm pillers that for some unknown reason are "sacred" and cannot be applied to the scientific method. Well fine when it comes to religion I couldn't give two hoots.. But now this sacred status has been applied to Global warming. Something, and I'd rather this were not true, now effects me and the economy around me greatly.
The problem is thus, belif has suddenly been thrown into the debate. A place where belif has no place at all! Stop treating it like a religion, and allow people to calmly point out that there is stll no firm proof that man has had a significant effect on the climate changes on the planet. I do not belive man has, in fact I am convinced man as a race has not, and 99% of climate changes are due to natural fluxuations that have happend many times before.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22835
Now here is the basis from the article but there is a lot more there.
The IPCC is pre-programmed to produce reports to support the hypotheses of anthropogenic warming and the control of greenhouse gases, as envisioned in the Global Climate Treaty. The 1990 IPCC Summary completely ignored satellite data, since they showed no warming. The 1995 IPCC report was notorious for the significant alterations made to the text after it was approved by the scientists ? in order to convey the impression of a human influence. The 2001 IPCC report claimed the twentieth century showed ?unusual warming? based on the now-discredited hockey-stick graph. The latest IPCC report, published in 2007, completely devaluates the climate contributions from changes in solar activity, which are likely to dominate any human influence.
Maybe because you are fed up you haven't followed the debate, and you should have.
You write that you hope we don't get let down again. I assume you are talking about the Clinton Administration's refusal to send the Kyoto Accord to the Senate for ratification. Bush as just continued with the Clinton Administration's policy of rejecting the Kyoto Protocol until the countries that will emit a majority of emissions in the future have binding limits on greenhouse gases.
Bush and Inhofe understand that there are great costs to greenhouse gas controls. You could appeal to their greed, but unlike the members of the US Climate Action Partnership, they aren't trying to screw other businesses through regulation. Instead, Bush and Inhofe are fighting for the little guy who would have to pay the increased taxes or lose their jobs because of greenhouse gas controls.
You note that the Senate is considering S. 2191. If this bill were to be passed California would lose between 129,000 and 195,000 jobs by 2020 and it would cost families between 5,200 and 9,400 dollars a year by 2030. http://www.accf.org/pdf/NAM/California.pdf It might come as a surprise that Bush and Inhofe are working for the little guy, if you examine these numbers it is obvious they want to protect American jobs instead of sending them overseas.
You note that Jim Rogers at Duke Energy is a part of the United States Climate Action Partnership and you would assume he supports S.2191, but he doesn't. He opposed it because it isn't the type of greenhouse gas regulation bill that help his company.
And let's not forget the news over the past week. NPR ran a story about heat in the ocean noting that the oceans have slightly cooled over the past 5 years. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025 This is contrary to predictions from the computer models that suggest we need to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, scientists don't know why the ocean hasn't warmed, but it is contrary to their theories. This should at least give us pause before engaging in massive new regulations and dramatically increase energy prices.
Personally, I'd be less worried about the US as a pollutor because the Chinese are quickly surpasing us.
http://www.climatecrisiscoalition.org/blog/?m=200705&paged=2
(4th article)
- by Franz Gruber March 21, 2008 11:48 PM PDT
- What bothers me most about the scientific community is its reliance on computer models, and my problem with computer models has less to do with the reliability of computers and more to do with the accuracy and honesty of those entering the data. Like they say, "Garbage in, garbage out." As was pointed out earlier, the scientific community has a big financial inducement to boost the theory of global warming. Moreover there is definitely a herd mentality in academia. Want that promotion to a full professorship? Then follow the trend and go along to get along. In a word, I don't trust people enough to accept their computers' words as gospel, especially when passed off as the opinion of acknowledged experts. Maybe when it stops raining & snowing up here I'll be less skeptical. At the moment it's foggy, just like the current predictions.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 4 pages (93 Comments)