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".

And it could have been done faster and less costly with market means and economic incentives. Regulations do work. By they do it poorly, with nowhere near the speed and cost effectiveness of an established system of property rights, an effective civil law system, economic incentives, innovative tax structures, and other decentralized measure. At the same time they are not coercive, and leave people free to choose, rather than giving the government more power.

In the USA, the effectiveness of your litigious culture has saved the environment. Had people not been able to sue government for not following its own laws, or individuals and corporations for violating their property rights, you would not have the same quality of environment.

With all due respect, I think you need to read up on the US environmental policies of the past 30 years.

The quality of the environment was deteriorating at a significant and steady rate from the industrial revolution through the 1970s as a result of the free market; the regulations made the difference.

Even the industries that vocally opposed the regs at the time and predicted enonomic armageddon - auto industry, petro-chemical industry, agri-business, etc - now acknowledge they were wrong.

I think maybe you should read my post again. Just because a regulation accomplishes a goal does not make it a good regulation, or that regulations are good. If you must go about trying to "save the environment" regulations are the most costly and excruciatingly slow method of doing so. Just because they work doesn't mean there are not better options.

so then you must agree that missionaries saving the heathens is a good thing... since you know they are "saving the world"

and
If they don't want to change... it's egotistical.

People don't want to stop reproducing at an eventually unsustainable rate. There will be a point where people have to either grow up or starve to death. If I'm one of those people that says "grow up", will I be egotistical?

there's a difference in saying it versus forcing someone to do it.

The problem with this specific situation (the one of this thread), though, is that I've personally been harmed by it. Sure, some politicians think they can fool people into thinking that it's impossible for humans to effect our climate, but there is no doubt that there is a direct, causal link between air pollution and asthma. I have no family history of asthma going back 3 generations, but Ch'i and I were both raised in San Jose, which had bad pollution in the 80s into the 90s, and we both have serious asthma. As a matter of fact, asthma rates here, especially for those born and raised in the 80s into the 90s, are unusually high. You can find similar situations in other higher pollution areas (especially LA). There's other, extensive documentation that I've read (but won't reference in a pub discussion).

If I say, "Stop polluting", I'm not just saying don't ruin our climate, I'm saying that I don't want my posterity having the asthma that I have, which isn't some abstract damage.

I didnt have any problem with forcing industries from dumping their toxic sludge into the nearest lake...or agri-business disposing of their feed lot runoff into the nearest river or stream...they bitched and moaned..and then complied and their bottom line did not suffer measurably.

And now I dont have any problem with forcing utlities or any heavy industry from continuing to spew tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

It wont save the planet...it will make it more breathable for many....and contrary to free market thinking, there is little incentive to do it voluntarily and it certainly wouldnt be done faster as suggested in earlier posts.

Again, egotistical. You want it for YOUR posterity. I don't plan on having kids, so my opinion doesn't count? I have asthma too, I don't want to inflict it upon anyone. It doesn't mean that I don't want to have the CHOICE to sit in a smokey jazz or blues bar and listen to some deep music with a drink in one hand and a cigarette in another.

My wife? She doesn't like to sit in smokey bars. That's not her thing. When I used to come home smelling like an ashtray even after I quit smoking, I'd have to shower before going to bed at 5AM. It was my choice and my consequences I had to deal with.

So far, egotistical people have removed CHOICES.

I don't like the color temperature of CFL bulbs. I prefer incandescent. The great state of California has removed that CHOICE from me.
-----Added 6/9/2008 at 12 : 15 : 53-----
I don't have a problem with industry. I've stated it before, I'm fine with measurable caps and hardlined penalties. I don't believe in carbon credits, buying/selling/trading.

If you want conservation, then everyone conserves across the board. Not use someone else's unused spots.

The federal government has removed that choice from you as well. Last year's energy bill phases-out incandescent light bulbs starting in 2012 and completly by 2020.

Australia is ahead of us and has baned incandescent bulbs by 2010.
-----Added 6/9/2008 at 12 : 31 : 36-----
I'm with you on the carbon credits and I'm with you on everyone conserving across the board...even with something that might appear to be as insignificant as light bulbs.

And I wouldnt be surprised if CFL bulbs lose out in the process (issues with disposal) and by 2012, some entrepreneurs develop brighter and less costly LED bulbs than those currently available (now they are expensive and have a small "light circle") and that are 70% more energy efficient than incandescent and 30% more energy efficient than CFLs. (I may be off on the percentages).

That is one byproduct of regulation...it stimulates innovation to meet compliance.

You're arguing for your right to poison people, though. I don't get to choose not to breathe air. Cigarette smoke really only effects the smoker and the immediate area around the smoker. The cumulative effect of automobiles, power plants, manufacturing facilities, etc. all contribute to a toxic environment that's substantially large. Entire metropolitan areas often are accompanied by moderate to severe air pollution. Even moving out of major metro areas, one is still exposed to metro pollution and pollution from more local sources. The north San Joaquin and Sacramento valleys get pollution blown in from the Bay Area. Mojave gets pollution from LA.

Is it egotistical for me to take action to demonstrate that there are alternatives to our polluting ways that could be just as useful but wouldn't put anyone at risk for asthma (or climate change, for that matter)?

That's how I go about doing what I do, usually. I've found that most people don't have the same Christ-complex I have, they need further motivation than "it will help the world". When I talk about replacing light bulbs, I talk about the money people will save. When I talk about alternative fuel cars, I tout "150 miles per gallon". When I talk about solar, I explain "we won't run out of sun power for billions of years". There are more altruistic explanations for each of these, of course, but many people are a little self centered when it comes to decisions in their life. I'm not going to berate them for it, just factor it in when I make my pitch. It's really not even my place to judge them, unless they're actively hurting others or themselves (which isn't the case).

Language like "egotistical" isn't pragmatic because people tend to stop listening when you insult them. It's just a part of being a sympathetic, social species, I guess.

and again, lighting isn't just about having light to read. It's about lighting for mood, atmosphere. LED also cannot produce the same effect as an incandescent bulb.



Again, will NO I AM NOT ADVOCATING THE RIGHT TO POISON PEOPLE.

I've stated I'm fine with regulations that limit industry.

I'm not fine with removing my choices for sitting in an private place of business to sit with INCANDESCENT low lighting and SMOKE CIGARETTES. Please learn to READ and understand what I've posted, and not what you want to see.

But you called me egotistical for suggesting that I would take some action to make sure my kids wouldn't have asthma. You can see a mixed signal there, right?
I'm not talking about regulations, even. I'm talking about explaining to people there are better options that are in their best interest AND the best interest of the planet, instead of having them continue, ignorant to the better option. That's how I would prefer to go about changing things for the better.

Who are you arguing against? It seems you applied a context to something I said that wasn't really there.

It's egotistical of you. That's my opinion of your and your greenie type folk who tout "for the children" and "save the planet"

So there are better options for saving your soul ala missionaries. You aren't being much different in your explanation to the "better option that are in their best interest." Big fucking deal. It's not my cup of tea and I don't appreciate someone telling me that my lifestyle sucks and that yours is better, and then FORCING me to comply via stupid regulation.

But hey, I get that you don't get that, just like any of the other misssionary midsets, you can't live and let live.

Yes, but in order to reach your conclusion about "greenies" you have to ignore what I've been posting. Nowhere did I say anything about forcing anyone to do anything, so all you're doing is repeating a strawman. I've not discussed legislation. I've only discussed making sure that everyone is aware of their options. How is me explaining to someone "air pollution can cause asthma, and the things that cause air pollution can be replaced with cheaper and more efficient alternatives", allowing them to make an informed decision, egotistical? It's not.
You're picking a fight. I'm out.

I'm not doing any such thing. Again, you've stated that pollution is bad. I've AGREED to that, which you aren't interested in reading. I'm stating simply that your psoition of making someone aware of their options is like any missionary that says "You must believe in God to be saved, it's the better way." and keeps on it, even when someone has said politely,"No thank you not interested." But see that's okay when it's for you, again, it's same stance, "I don't need to change, you need to change."

Funny, you're not discussing legislation, but the fact remains there is some legislation that does remove choice, incandescent bulbs are no longer a choice? Why? Because it's not "green" and there is legislation that has come to the forefront to REMOVE the choice, just like removing the choice from private businesses to allow SMOKING in their space. See, you aren't willing to concede or agree that I should be free to do what I want in my own private space as long as I'm not harming someone else who isn't consenting. But see, legislation has removed such a choice. I am not allowed to cater a business to a select niche of adults who care to sit in a smokey bar.

I don't understand why we can't conserve. It's not a big deal or a big strain to not shit in the drinking water. I don't know if the science is right or wrong (sorry liberals I'm not smart enough to deserve my right to vote) but I do know when I look out my window and can;t see the mountains or have trouble breathing that something is wrong. It doesn't take a Phd to know well enough to NOT poop or throw trash in our drinking water. Using common sense in regards to the environment is not detrimental to business. What's wring with protecting our environment? I really don't understand the argument here. I'm a conservative. I believe in conserving our environment and our resources. What am I not getting?

it made me change my major.

i became too frustrated with green-fear. too many idiots running around. all those environmental science courses for naught.
-----Added 18/9/2008 at 02 : 42 : 56-----
the problem is all the leftists (everyone in my program) who want to go sticking hefty punitive fines, telling people how to live their lives, and appealing to a false-god-like sensibility by telling people "it's just that simple!".

basically, the majority of people speaking in favour of the environment, and conservation in general have their heads literally inside their colon. i think they are searching for bio-fuel.

Yes, going green may not affect a large company's bottom line as the costs attributed to securing the procedures are eventually passed on to the consumer. Which means average american joe pays for those costs.
Where it does affect business are those smaller family sized businesses that have a hard time passing the green costs on to their customers which happen to be big corporate business that will not accept price increases in any form. Causing the smaller company to eventually fold or be bought out by the same big business that we all love to hate. Causing less market competition and hence higher costs to the end consumer once again.
Another affect is in global imbalance - if American companies all have to implement zero emmisions standards and similar Indian/Chinese companies have no such standards, the market cost imbalance will (and is) cost American's jobs that will travel overseas.

So, all "green" enforcements have costs that do affect the bottom line in Big Business and in our wallets. The only thing that has to be considered is how much really needs to be done so that we don't go back to days of dumping toxic pollutants into rivers yet don't put some many restrictions as to force small business' to not be able to compete in a global market. So, yes some "green" enforcements need to be done but not at the expense of closing american companies or the loss of jobs. Finally, to answer the original thread question - no I don't think global warming is a big threat. It has been blown out of porportion.

To answer the original question, yes, my opinion has changed over the years.

I'm more convinced than ever that warming and cooling is part of a natural cycle and that man isn't contributing to the forces of nature that is causing it.

My opinion hasn't changed much. I think the first piece I read on CO2 warming was in the 80s. I still have it. This was in the mainstream (Scientific American).