Global Warming

[metis]

This issue of global warming was here long before Gore talked about it and it's likely to be here after he's gone, and I don't think he's any more the "face" of global warming than the man in the moon is.  I've always had mixed feelings about Gore, but that's neither here nor there. 

[Acumen]

This issue of global warming was here long before Gore talked about it and it's likely to be here after he's gone, and I don't think he's any more the "face" of global warming than the man in the moon is.  I've always had mixed feelings about Gore, but that's neither here nor there. 

Right, but as Thorolf said, he's the face of global warming.  He's the political mouthpiece, and not a very good one.  He alienated those scientists who don't agree with his position by comparing them to flat earth theorists.  I don't see that as practicing science, it sounds more like faith to me, which seems to be a recurring theme in science lately.

[Thorolf]

This issue of global warming was here long before Gore talked about it and it's likely to be here after he's gone, and I don't think he's any more the "face" of global warming than the man in the moon is.  I've always had mixed feelings about Gore, but that's neither here nor there. 

And the internet was here long before Gore invented it.. but that didn't stop him from laying claim. 

In all seriousness, nobody said that Gore discovered global warming. He's taken on the mantle of "mouthpiece" and "agent for change" with respect to the issue.

And as Acumen noted - he's turning out to not be a very good one.

[metis]

Right, but as Thorolf said, he's the face of global warming.  He's the political mouthpiece, and not a very good one.  He alienated those scientists who don't agree with his position by comparing them to flat earth theorists.  I don't see that as practicing science, it sounds more like faith to me, which seems to be a recurring theme in science lately.

Gore has long had a tendency to stick his foot in his mouth (I can relate to that as well, btw).  And we have to remember that Gore is not a research scientist who specializes in this area.  BTW, another report just was released last week by a European group that also concluded that global warming is at least partially due to human activity.  

The research is quite overwhelming at this point, so it seems the discussion would be more wisely spent on what do we do?  Even if it were to turn out that global warming was some sort of scarecrow, nevertheless we need to consider other problems that relate to a high dependency on fossil fuels-- there's much more at stake here.  

[SquirleyWurley]

Frankly, I expect there to be disagreements between scientists on any number of details and specific claims in any field such as climate.  Studying climate just isn't like studying the physics of mechanics.

I'm not so concerned what someone with a B.S. in Biology thinks about climate, or what someone with a Ph.D. in neurology thinks about climate, except that they may have some insight as to the rigors of peer review and research standards which may serve as a useful critique when it comes to how another field is trying to deal with its subject matter.  A given field may be such that those with expertise and those involved in specific research have their own insights relevant to their field, given the subject matter, and others with less experience or less connection to such research, those in other fields, simply don't understand what's going on AT THAT LEVEL.

Among those with relevant expertise and research experience dealing with climate, the ice samples from glaciers, etc., there is CONSIDERABLE agreement that there is SOME kind of global climate change occurring, recently.  This raises a red flag for someone who is cautious and wishes to act responsibly.

As Vern indicated, it raises serious questions as to what we ought to do, while poking at the rhetoric of a political advocate is another matter.

[gluadys]

Firm Consensus: global climate change happens, humans contribute to it, it can cause future problems, we should be responsible.  Fine.  That part I agree with.

Here is an interesting article I gleamed of the homepage:

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/al_gore_global_warming/2008/05/19/97307.html?utm_medium=RSS

The headline of this article is 31,000 Scientists Debunk Al Gore and Global Warming

It's an interesting article.

Do they have the list of signatures on-line somewhere?  Typically when one finds a politically-charged debunking of this sort the scientists are speaking outside their field of expertise and/or have vested interests that lie contrary to the recommended actions.

Not saying this applies to all 31 thousand + signers of this petition, but it is a red flag that the spokesperson heads up an institution on Science and Medicine.  How does a background in Medicine make one an expert on climatology? 

[gluadys]

I simply don't see Al Gore as the real issue one way or another.

Well, he is the "face" of Global Warming, and has had a fairly significant impact on our education system and the presentation of global warming through the media. Everything he has done has had an impact on public opinion, research funding, and political rhetoric - and it turns out that all of his work has been pushing a "scientific fact" that, well, isn't.

He may not be "the" real issue, but he certainly is "an" issue.

Maybe in the US, and his involvement in politics obviously doesn't help the situation.

But the issue is not just American.

In Canada the "face" of global warming is David Suzuki.  And he is not a politician.  I doubt that in Europe  Al Gore has had that much of an impact.  Gore may be wrong on some of his facts, but we need to be looking at the actual research, not the popularizations of it in the media.  The conclusions of the IPCC are the real issue. 

[Thorolf]

I simply don't see Al Gore as the real issue one way or another.

Well, he is the "face" of Global Warming, and has had a fairly significant impact on our education system and the presentation of global warming through the media. Everything he has done has had an impact on public opinion, research funding, and political rhetoric - and it turns out that all of his work has been pushing a "scientific fact" that, well, isn't.

He may not be "the" real issue, but he certainly is "an" issue.

Maybe in the US, and his involvement in politics obviously doesn't help the situation.

But the issue is not just American.

In Canada the "face" of global warming is David Suzuki.  And he is not a politician.  I doubt that in Europe  Al Gore has had that much of an impact.  Gore may be wrong on some of his facts, but we need to be looking at the actual research, not the popularizations of it in the media.  The conclusions of the IPCC are the real issue. 

It is true that the debate is not just American, and that Gore is not going to have the same impact or presence in other countries, but I'm primarily talking about his US impact.

Besides, I'm an American... I don't care about what other countries are doing.    (JUST KIDDING!!)

I think we all need to take ANY conclusions with a grain of salt; there are still far too many questions, no matter what people much smarter than me wish to believe. There are still far too many anomalies, far too few years of actual statistical records, far too much dissent, and far too many head-scratchers to reach any definitive conclusion.

Even if consensus were sufficient, there is clearly not consensus on this issue...

Does that mean we don't need to be careful, or don't need to change our habits? No... I think it's wise if we DO handle "creation" a bit more... gently. I think we DO need to advance technologies to improve fuel consumption and pollution, food production, etc, etc...

But I don't think the campaign of fear being undertaken by the likes of Al Gore and company are the way to do it, especially when their scientific support seems to be shaky at best.

What if the hallmarks of their positions are proved to be incorrect, say, tomorrow? What would happen to the POLITICS of environmentalism then?

[gluadys]

It is true that the debate is not just American, and that Gore is not going to have the same impact or presence in other countries, but I'm primarily talking about his US impact.

Besides, I'm an American... I don't care about what other countries are doing.    (JUST KIDDING!!)

I certainly hope you are kidding.  I think a lot of problems today stem from the fact that the US developed global power without developing a global consciousness.  There is still a large streak of isolationism in many Americans. 

I think we all need to take ANY conclusions with a grain of salt; there are still far too many questions, no matter what people much smarter than me wish to believe. There are still far too many anomalies, far too few years of actual statistical records, far too much dissent, and far too many head-scratchers to reach any definitive conclusion.

The problem is that this is an issue where we can't wait for definitive conclusions.  By the time the info is definitively verified the damage is done.  And the point is to prevent, or minimize the damage and be prepared to adapt to inevitable changes before they happen.

Of course, having to take action without all the relevant information is par for the course in politics.  It is done all the time because society is complex and just how any policy or action will impact the situation is always somewhat unpredictable.  So we don't have all the answers.  What we do know at this point is that global warming is real enough and will bring changes we must prepare for. And anything that will minimize global warming will both reduce the impact, and have a number of other beneficial spinoffs.  For example, reducing dependence on oil for energy production has a number of other environmental , economic and politically desirable consequences apart from global warming. 

That we don't have consensus on all the details of what the impact of global warming will be, or what the impact of various minimizing strategies will be is inevitable and not a reason for no action at all. 

But I don't think the campaign of fear being undertaken by the likes of Al Gore and company are the way to do it, especially when their scientific support seems to be shaky at best.

What if the hallmarks of their positions are proved to be incorrect, say, tomorrow? What would happen to the POLITICS of environmentalism then?

Not much.  Environmentalism is not dependent on Al Gore.  It is dependent on study of the environment, care for the environment, learning what works and what destroys.  The basic political issue is whether we opt for a human life that uses nature destructively or works in harmony with nature to preserve its capacity to sustain life.   Once we have opted, hopefully, for the second there will still be myriads of questions and opinions on how to do that. 

[Faithfulee]

The Wall street Journal had a bit different take

A Different Consensus
June 7, 2008; Page A10

Even as the U.S. Senate debates a vast new tax and spend regime in the name of fighting climate change, a more instructive argument was taking place in Copenhagen, Denmark. Some of the world's leading economists met last week to decide how to do the most good in a world of finite resources.

Scarcity is a core economic concept, though politicians and even many economists prefer to ignore it. There isn't an unlimited amount of money to be spent on every problem, so choices have to be made. The question addressed by the Copenhagen Consensus Center is what investments would do the most good for the most people. The center's blue-ribbon panel of economists, including five Nobel laureates, weighed more than 40 proposals to improve the world by spending a total of $75 billion over the next four years.

Actually "doing something" about global warming was at the bottom of the list of recommendations.  This group wanted more money spent on medications and other health related thing that could help people NOW rather than spend our precious resources on speculative items that the poor and undernourished may not live long enought to enjoy.

[gluadys]

The Wall street Journal had a bit different take

A Different Consensus
June 7, 2008; Page A10

Even as the U.S. Senate debates a vast new tax and spend regime in the name of fighting climate change, a more instructive argument was taking place in Copenhagen, Denmark. Some of the world's leading economists met last week to decide how to do the most good in a world of finite resources.

Scarcity is a core economic concept, though politicians and even many economists prefer to ignore it. There isn't an unlimited amount of money to be spent on every problem, so choices have to be made. The question addressed by the Copenhagen Consensus Center is what investments would do the most good for the most people. The center's blue-ribbon panel of economists, including five Nobel laureates, weighed more than 40 proposals to improve the world by spending a total of $75 billion over the next four years.

Actually "doing something" about global warming was at the bottom of the list of recommendations.  This group wanted more money spent on medications and other health related thing that could help people NOW rather than spend our precious resources on speculative items that the poor and undernourished may not live long enought to enjoy.

Well, it's not an either-or situation.  After all, in the final analysis, money is not a "precious resource".  It represents the real precious resources of water, earth and sea that provide the food & drink and materials for shelter and clothing that we all need to survive.

Of course, we should spend more income on medications and health-related items.  One very urgent need is research into new medications to fight the diseases that plague the poor such as malaria and tuberculosis.  But all the $ spent on such items will not matter a whit if the very viability of the planet goes down the tubes. It is not just the poor who won't live through the collapse of the planetary ecosystem.  It is all of us and our children and grand-children and great-grandchildren.   That is not speculative. 

[Thorolf]

No, but the notion of a planetary ecosystem collapse is pretty speculative...

BTW, did you know that they're writing an environmentalist opera in Italy? It's about Al Gore, and the writer is hoping Gore will star in it.

What was that about Gore not having impact in Europe?

[SquirleyWurley]

Evaluating any particular scenario of future climate may be rather speculative, but the general principle of being responsible for potential effects of our actions isn't particularly speculative, and neither is the basic notion of how polar glacier samples indicate significant climate change which we seem to have to deal with somehow, sooner or later.

[metis]

Evaluating any particular scenario of future climate may be rather speculative, but the general principle of being responsible for potential effects of our actions isn't particularly speculative, and neither is the basic notion of how polar glacier samples indicate significant climate change which we seem to have to deal with somehow, sooner or later.

Well said, imo.  A reaction to reduce global warming has other side benefits, such as potentially reducing our reliance on foreign oil, energy conservation, alternative fuel sources, reduced pollution levels, etc.

[Thorolf]

Evaluating any particular scenario of future climate may be rather speculative, but the general principle of being responsible for potential effects of our actions isn't particularly speculative, and neither is the basic notion of how polar glacier samples indicate significant climate change which we seem to have to deal with somehow, sooner or later.

It's the "somehow" part that intrigues me, though. Not only is there not any real consensus on why there is more glacial melting in recent years, but there's isn't even consensus on what, if anything, we can do about it or whether or not it's even a bad thing.

There is a limit of rational response, IMO... as I've said before in this thread, I'm not opposed to taking rational steps that are just logical and feasible things we can and should do as good stewards of what we have been given - but to take any extraordinary measures that carry extraordinary costs to "fix" something that may not even be broken because we SPECULATE about both the cause and effect is hardly what I would consider being particularly "responsible."

[SquirleyWurley]

Yes, that is what I think is the issue.

[gluadys]

No, but the notion of a planetary ecosystem collapse is pretty speculative...

No, it is not speculative at all.  Irreversible, runaway climate change is a very possible scenario that is not at all out of the question yet.

Not only is there not any real consensus on why there is more glacial melting in recent years, but there's isn't even consensus on what, if anything, we can do about it or whether or not it's even a bad thing.

Mostly, it is the speed of climate change that is a "bad thing".  At the speed climate change is occurring, there is little possibility for life forms to adapt to the new conditions, so a rapid, severe climate change necessarily means significant extinction---and this imposed on the significant extinction human activity is already causing. 

I don't think there is any question that global warming is the reason there is more glacial melting.  Also melting of permafrost, rise in sea levels, etc.  The reason why there is global warming is a much more complex question with much more complex answers. 

But prudence dictates that in the face of the probable effects, we act on such knowledge as we have, even if it is incomplete.  Waiting for more confirmation and a higher degree of accuracy at this stage likely means waiting to the point where no action can have any ameliorative effect.

[Thorolf]

No, but the notion of a planetary ecosystem collapse is pretty speculative...

No, it is not speculative at all.  Irreversible, runaway climate change is a very possible scenario that is not at all out of the question yet.

True... for example, if an asteroid hits the Earth, we will experience runaway climate change. That is a very possible scenario.

However, it's actually mathematically possible to calculate that an asteroid is likely to hit the Earth again some day. That our actions are directly forcing the planet towards a total collapse of the ecosystem is, in my assessment, pretty clearly speculative.

Not only is there not any real consensus on why there is more glacial melting in recent years, but there's isn't even consensus on what, if anything, we can do about it or whether or not it's even a bad thing.

Mostly, it is the speed of climate change that is a "bad thing".  At the speed climate change is occurring, there is little possibility for life forms to adapt to the new conditions, so a rapid, severe climate change necessarily means significant extinction---and this imposed on the significant extinction human activity is already causing. 

I don't think there is any question that global warming is the reason there is more glacial melting.  Also melting of permafrost, rise in sea levels, etc.  The reason why there is global warming is a much more complex question with much more complex answers. 

But prudence dictates that in the face of the probable effects, we act on such knowledge as we have, even if it is incomplete.  Waiting for more confirmation and a higher degree of accuracy at this stage likely means waiting to the point where no action can have any ameliorative effect.

Actually, I sort of challenge that conclusion. Prudence would dictate that acting on limited or nonexistent actual facts is irresponsible.

As I've said repeatedly, I believe there are things we should do - clearly carbon monoxide is harmful to humans, so what's the problem with finding cleaner, safer, and ultimately (hopefully) cheaper fuel sources? Clearly, having trees is better than not having trees, for a number of reasons from oxygen production (we sometimes find oxygen useful) to aesthetics... so I think it's a good thing if we try to keep them around.

And there are plenty of other things that I think ARE prudent.

What isn't prudent is taking wholesale, economically harmful action without having the facts in hand that it is either necessary, would be effective, and would NOT be harmful in and of itself. You can't save the planet by spinning wheels, so let's at least try to ensure that we don't waste a lot of time, money, and energy doing something that could very well turn out to be pointless. Especially when we could use that time, money, and energy finding a better way...

I realize that we want to do something NOW... I'm not advocating that we do nothing, just that we use our resources wisely to implement an effective program - if one exists.

[gluadys]

True... for example, if an asteroid hits the Earth, we will experience runaway climate change. That is a very possible scenario.

However, it's actually mathematically possible to calculate that an asteroid is likely to hit the Earth again some day. That our actions are directly forcing the planet towards a total collapse of the ecosystem is, in my assessment, pretty clearly speculative.

It is also mathematically possible to calculate a threshold at which climate change becomes runaway and irreversible with the potential to destroy most if not all life on the planet.  No scientist doubts that this could happen.  There are, of course, optimists and pessimists, both on the probability that it will happen even if we do nothing and on the probability that it will happen no matter what we do.

Actually, I sort of challenge that conclusion. Prudence would dictate that acting on limited or nonexistent actual facts is irresponsible.

The facts are clearly not "non-existent".  "limited" yes, but in the first place, all knowledge is limited, and in the second place we often have to decide on a course of action anyway.   Prudence   is the policy of "better safe than sorry".  It is the policy of the cautionary principle of preventing possible harm rather than waiting for it to happen and trying to pick up the pieces.

What isn't prudent is taking wholesale, economically harmful action without having the facts in hand that it is either necessary, would be effective, and would NOT be harmful in and of itself. You can't save the planet by spinning wheels, so let's at least try to ensure that we don't waste a lot of time, money, and energy doing something that could very well turn out to be pointless. Especially when we could use that time, money, and energy finding a better way...

I realize that we want to do something NOW... I'm not advocating that we do nothing, just that we use our resources wisely to implement an effective program - if one exists.

I think you are dreaming up scare scenarios in order to justify non-action.  What you need is a good dose of hope and I have just the prescription.  If you haven't already picked it up, check out The Geography of Hope: a Tour of the World We Need by Chris Turner. 

Adjusting our way of life to minimize/ adapt to climate change is urgent, but it does not call for "wholesale economically harmful action". 

[SquirleyWurley]

In reality there's degrees and types of action.

One type of action takes nightmare speculations as a rationalization to implement a complicated and drastic set of policies, which once undertaken are difficult to challenge or modify, and when things later go wrong it isn't admitted that the original rationalization is faulty.

Another type of action takes nightmare speculations as a rationalization to do nothing but retreat into ideological assumptions which ignore and deny troubling indicators, and then when things later go wrong it isn't admitted that the original rationalizations were faulty.

And yet another type of action takes a serious look at evidence and is careful, cautious, and prudent, taking pains to make sure that any action taken can be adjusted when evidence indicates there was error, allowing for discussion of competing views of evidence, etc.