Have your opinions changed regarding global warming?
 

Have your opinions changed regarding global warming?

With all of our scientific advances, we still can't accurately predict the point of land-fall or intensity of weather events like Hurricane Gustav. And after reading recent reports about how the absence of sun-spots for over a month is affecting our summer temperatures (lowered), studying historic weather cycles, and the impact that volcanic eruptions has on the atmosphere, I am absolutely not convinced that the "science" of global warming should be accepted as conclusive. Good stewardship is always a "good thing", but a rush to legislate radical climate change policies may be premature or irresponsible. If a scenario of global cooling should indeed follow from a reduction of solar activity, worse global consequences could be felt more rapidly than current global warming predictions. So what's it going to be?

In light of this year's reduced global temperatures and the accuracy of our sciences to predict and model future events, what are your current opinions regarding climate change, "green industries", legislation, treaties, etc.?

• holding steady
• strengthened
• guarded, but open to questioning
• changed considerably

I wasn't sure how to create a poll... I'll edit to include one later if possible.

Mine have remained basically unchanged for the past few years. I've seen the data, and will continue to look at the data, but it would take something conclusive to shake my understanding of the current data. Frankly, it's not all that complicated, it's just made to seem that way in the MSM, as if there's some sort of debate. Even with the data about the sun, it doesn't account for the last century of CO2 change correlating to the temperature change.

Ok...I will expand on my NO:

I am of the opinion that recent human activity (auto emissions, utilities, heavy industry) is responsible for spewing millions of tons of greenhouse gases (mostly CO2) into the atmosphere every year and that those greenhouse gases have a degrading effect that is very likely to have a long term impact on the earth’s environment, including climate.

I am also of the opinion that action should be taken at the national level (and through international agreements) that result in policy recommendations that limit or contain those greenhouse gas emissions in the future and that are both environmentally and economically sustainable.

From most polling data I have seen, I believe a majority of Americans share that opinion.

And finally, I am of the opinion that Exon.Mobil and related companies/industries will continue to spend $millions, perhaps $billions, to spread misinformation with the hope of stalling or preventing such federal policy solutions and/or international agreements.

How do you explain in ice core samples co2 was higher during ice age than in warmer times?

Also did anyone else see they found under sea volcanoes around the north pole?
And why is it the 35,000 scientists that signed a petition saying there wasn't enough evidence of global warming were shoved under the rug for the hand full that say there is.

My opinion hasn't changed
The global warming scare is green's new communism.

No. When they can use the models and simulations to accurately show KNOWN temperatures (temperatures of recorded weather history) will I change my mind.

The Northwest Passage is opening up, ice roads that service communities in the north are freezing for shorter periods, invasive species such as Pine Beetles are ravaging forests much farther and farther north...

It would be economic suicide for a country that so heavily depends on natural resources to ignore the ramifications of such a shifting situation.

We can debate culpability all we want but still need to prepare for the consequences.

the only way in which my opinion has changed is at the level of marvelling at the amount of disinformation that circulates, particularly in the united states, about this question. as for the sources, follow the money. it is obvious that the idea is to prevent a coherent discussion from breaking out nationally about global warming/climate change and the relation between the data which shows a relation between petroleum dependency and climate change. one aspect of this disinformation is the almost constant setting up of false problems---so you see people moving from general dismissal to absurd demands for rigidly constructed datasets involving information that you know full well was not gathered and could not have been (temperature records going back more than 150 years...)

in the end, this is an aesthetic matter in the states: if you are inclined for reactionary political reasons to collapse green or sustainability politics into some nimrod "communist" category, then you're also inclined to not think there's any problem.
nothing to do with actual information in this.

it's hard to go any further in this kind of context/thread, so i'll leave it here.

IMO, waiting for models and simulations to be 100% accurate is like waiting for hell to freeze over...

but if that happens, I suspect the naysayers will blame the changing climate of hell on declining morals or a communist conspiracy.

I didn't say 100%, just within the ballpark, but they can't even do that. In other words to reverse engineer to a specific date and come close within a fair margin of error.

Cyn.. why do you think it is that the national scientific advisory bodies of the top 10-15 nations in the world found the IPCC models/forecasts to be reasonable enough to affirm the IPCC position of "likely" or "very likely" that human activities contribute to climate change.

Do you think those bodies are acting out of political interests? financial interests?
-----Added 5/9/2008 at 11 : 18 : 36-----
As opposed to organizations/foundations funded by oil (and other interests) and rarely, if ever, subject to peer review,

I don't doubt that we pollute or contribute to the equation in some fashion, I'll agree that it is also "likely." I just can't accept that we're going to make huge changes and sacrifices only to have some volcano or other natural thing not in my control wipe away any changes we've made. I'm not egotistical enough to think that we can "save the planet." We can pollute less, which itself is conservative.

as to the direct questions, yes to both.

But on it's face to say that they can predict what temperatures will be, I don't or can't hear them. Back in the 70s they thought it was an upcoming Ice Age, recently it's warming, now it's Climate Change. See, now they can't be wrong, it's change. So either way they can be right.

Most of the policy recommendations I have seen dont require huge changes and sacrifices, and will result in less degradation of the environment in an economically sustainable manner. I dont recall any suggestion by the scientists or scientific bodies recommending such policies that they would be a "cure for saving the planet."

I dont see that as a bad thing by any measure.

ExxonMobil Report: Smoke Mirrors & Hot Air | Union of Concerned Scientists

have a look at this,
think of it as sliding a piece of paper across the table.

If you're talking carbon credits, buying selling of them, I disagree.

You talking about reductions and hardlined penalties for breaking caps, I'm fine with that.

uh oh...a link has made its way into the pub!

You are banished to the corner of the pub until after the next round of drinks...and we all get to throw popcorn at you!

throw all the popcorn you want, but as a penance you have to listen to my Problem with this exclusion of information business.
i'm not sure you want to get me started about this.

simple solution...all future pubs in TFP should have wifi access.

I think the Earth is in another warming cycle like it has many times in the past. I believe our contribution is probably minor but I am trying to stay open-minded due to the conficting information.

There are no such core samples. There was a decade-long study that culminated in the graph that's most known for being in An Inconvenient Truth. It's been verified by all the climatologists who've seen it. I'd go so far as to say there is a consensus about the ice core drillings.
How would those account for equal shelf breaks in Antarctica?
Very few of the names on the petition were of people who had any kind of knowledge of climate. There were fictitious names, economists, TV personalities, engineers and people who call themselves "scientists" despite not holding a job in any scientific field nor having any degree in science.

C'mon guys... this is a pub discussion... we need to honor the rules of the discussion otherwise it falls apart.

---

-+-{Important TFP Staff Message}-+- Pretend that we are at a pub, having this discussion. You wouldn't bring your books or magazines with you, just your brains, experiences, and opinions. The goal is to foster a conversation with varying points of view. Please do not quote articles here. If you want to reference a book or article that is fine, but don't quote it. If members find it intriguing, they will pursue that on their own. If you pulled out a book and started reading it to someone at a pub, they'd ask you to leave. At this pub, if you paste articles, they will be deleted. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and I hope these will be insightful, interesting discussions for all.

I'd just like to say that I'll believe that smoking cigarettes causes cancer when those damn scientists can predict the exact month in which that cancer will develop in my lungs. Until then, it's all cornswaddle to me.

I think I read a while back that Al Gore blamed cigarette smoke for contributing to global warming as well.

And if you look back into the 20th century, some of these scientists were actually recommending smoking cigarettes as a healthy behavior.

I think it's the height of arrogance to presume that human activities can even cause cancer...

Didn't the OP violate the rules by posting a link in the OP?

Wow... if I did, sorry... I can delete. I was just setting up the discussion. I see your point though.

To answer the OP, yes, my opinion on climate change has changed. I don't care about it any more. It doesn't motivate me to do anything differently, since there are a whole lot of other reasons to do the things we're supposed to do to combat global climate change that don't involve a sticky combination of science and rigid ideology. Living an energy conscious lifestyle just makes sense.

My opinion is that it's a damn shame that this science question has become a political question, which is I guess what happens when big money is on the line for people with massive vested interests.

i was trawling about the web this afternoon and stumbled across a european union observer website which had a prize for worst lobbyists of 2007, which daimler-benz won for a campaign against mandated reductions in carbon emissions in cars. they apparently spent a huge sum of money generating all sorts of infotainment about the dire consequences of such mandated reductions, which would obviously have impacted on their bottom line, and that impact would have far outweighed any consequences of this climate change business.

o yeah--in my everyday life, my position is basically the same as filtherton's.

Pretty much. It makes sense in a number of ways, particularly economically. I save a lot of money living the way that I do.

I'm all for taking personal actions to lessen your "carbon footprint" (I hate that term). I do it myself.

But it takes policy at a higher level to have any real impact.

IMO, Cyn's comment - "I'm not egotistical enough to think that we can "save the planet" - is a distortion of the general view of many scientists, policymakers and lay people who believe that human activities spewing tons of greenhouse gases into the environment every year contribute to environmental degradation, including having some impact on climate. No one expects to "save the planet"...just make it a little more livable for our kids and grandkids.

That kind of dismissal makes a great Exon talking point.

You may think it an Exxon talking point, but it is egotistical of humans to think that. The earth did it's thing for millions of years without humans, ebbing and flowing from hot to cold.

Now you want to say, "I'd like to save the human race from dying out..." I'm interested in listening to that a bit more to some degree. Still egotistical, but I'm more interested in the thruth of saving mankind than saving the planet.

My opinion has changed from full-blown "believer" status to a more reasonable level of skepticism. The evidence I have seen during my Environmental Studies degree is convincing, but I have not been presented with a large body of evidence. Rather most articles I read ASSUME global warming and wonder its effects, rather than provide a reasonable example of evidence of anthropogenic global warming. I am convinced of global warming, and I hold that anthropogenic sources are part of a greater whole of causes. I am convinced reducing pollution is a good thing.

I am unconvinced that the government regulation is the best way to reduce pollution. All the bodies of evidence I have read in regards to policy effectiveness has pointed towards free market and quasi-market soloutions, rather than government regulation.

Cyn...I agree that it is egotistical to think that we can "save the planet"....we certainly can make it more livable.

Where I disagree is an inference that those who believe our actions contribute to climate change have ever made such a claim....well, except maybe for Al Gore, who is a burden we bear with his exaggerations because his underlying message is able to reach a larger audience than any scientists.
-----Added 5/9/2008 at 07 : 03 : 48-----
The environmental regulations of the 1970s, which were adopted and implemented as a result of the serious and rapidly deteriorating air/water/ground pollution resulting from the free market at the time, would suggest otherwise. I would love to see your body of evidence sometime.

I don't think it's egotistical. It's optimistic. Since when is doing something for others egotistical?

what others? Future generations?

Doing something for someone for their own good that they do not consent to is egotistical, coercive, and tyrannical.

dc_dux:

Regulations are slow to change, slow to react to new science and technology, cumbersome, and expensive. They are scarecly better than doing nothing at all.

For example all Canadian jurisdictions require replanting after harvesting on public land. The government sets standards that must be met within the first 15 years after harvest, such that the same forest composition as was harvested has returned. Forest science has long progressed past this idea, in fact it was past this point when the regulations were brought in.

On the other hand, the Montreal Protocol was extremely successful in Canada. It aimed to reduce ozone depleting CFCs and HCFCs. The government set a realistic timeframe for reduction and elimination of CFCs, and then left industry free to develop the solutions. The result was a painless reduction in our reliance on CFCs/HCFCs, and less costly, more efficient industry.

Or take Sweden. That country put a tax on the sulfur content of diesel. The result is the rapid reduction of sulfur compound emissions in cars.

Recent experiences just dont support your conclusion.

Again, the regs of the 70s would suggest otherwise. Within 10 years of implementation, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Toxic Materials Control Act, etc. resulted in significant improvement in the deteriorating quality of our air/land/water....far more than if it had been left to doing nothing.

And at the same time, those regs stimulated innovative business practices and solutions to meet the new standards that probably would not have occurred as quickly.

There is no reason to believe that similar results would not be likely if we were to take strong regulatory action to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

And now more examples:


In the energy industry Sweden reduces NOx emissions by taxing the volume of NOx emissions, and then rebating the tax based on how much energy is used. This simultaneously reduces NOx emissions and encourages efficiency in energy production.

Unlike Canada, where water use is heavily subsidized, Sweden has removed all direct and indirect subsidies, reducing total water use by 34% since 1980.

From Unnatural Law by David R. Boyd

Private ownership of forested lands encourages multiple economic use of those lands because forests are valued beyond their timber resource.

A Breath of Fresh Aire published by The Fraser Institute

I was talking about "saving the world", generally.

BTW, nice hyperbole with "tyrannical".