Leading Global Warming Skeptic changes mind after watching Al Gore Speak

[Mazer]

That lack of data had a lot to do with the venue in which this talk was given. At TED conferences the speakers are only allowed 18 minutes, just enough time to present an idea. But his methodology and data didn't need to be presented because he wasn't actually trying to explain how to geoengineer the planet. The focus of his talk was that the taboo subject of geoengineering should be pulled out of the closet, discussed publicly and actively investigated by more climate scientists, possibly with government funding.

I was intrigued by this talk because he questioned many of the assumptions people make about global warming, primarily the the one that global warming is bad for everyone. What was so damn great about the global climate 200 years ago anyway? And if we can reverse global warming, should we really make it that cold again? People don't ask these sorts of questions nearly often enough and it's a good sign when scientists ask them. Hopefully more people will actually think about the answers to those questions instead of simply assuming that preindustrial temperatures are preferable.

Here's a link to the Economist article he referenced in his talk.

[vernarial]

In my opinion, pollution is bad. Even if it makes it a bit warmer for my Canadian buddies. That's what all these global warming emmisions are. Pollution. There aren't any big air polluters here in the valley I live in, but there are still at least a dozen days a year that the schools and alot of parents won't allow the children to play outside because the air is so bad.
The problem I see with the thinking that maybe some global warming might be good is that where does it stop? Someone is bound to say that if a little is good, wouldn't alot be great. Where do we stop? You know those penguins might like to live in a tropical paradise, so let's heat this place up some more. Sure maybe living in a little warmer climate might be better for some, but why pollute our atmosphere to do it. It might be easier if people just moved to warmer climates.
Nature is going to automatically warm and cool the planet in cycles. Sure we should look more fully into the questions of global warming and how it effects humans and how humans effect it. I don't see the need to continue poisoning our atmosphere and planet, just to study what the best temperature is for mankind.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by vernarial

In my opinion, pollution is bad. Even if it makes it a bit warmer for my Canadian buddies. That's what all these global warming emmisions are. Pollution. There aren't any big air polluters here in the valley I live in, but there are still at least a dozen days a year that the schools and alot of parents won't allow the children to play outside because the air is so bad.
The problem I see with the thinking that maybe some global warming might be good is that where does it stop? Someone is bound to say that if a little is good, wouldn't alot be great. Where do we stop? You know those penguins might like to live in a tropical paradise, so let's heat this place up some more. Sure maybe living in a little warmer climate might be better for some, but why pollute our atmosphere to do it. It might be easier if people just moved to warmer climates.
Nature is going to automatically warm and cool the planet in cycles. Sure we should look more fully into the questions of global warming and how it effects humans and how humans effect it. I don't see the need to continue poisoning our atmosphere and planet, just to study what the best temperature is for mankind.

You may consider CO2 to be a pollutant but scientists do not. The 75 PPM increase in CO2 concentrations that have been observed over the past four decades are a minuscule fraction of the amount of CO2 it would take to make the air poisonous. But the other products of fossil fuel combustion such as nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, and sulfur dioxide are pollutants and we should be minimizing those emissions as much as possible. The schools in your area are keeping kids indoors because of those pollutants, not because of greenhouse gas emissions.

Obviously I'm not arguing that we should be turning up the thermostat just to see what happens, it would serve no scientific purpose whatsoever. But I am asking the question why should we turn the thermostat down? I wasn't alive before the industrial revolution so I have no basis for comparing our current climate, but I am quite accustomed to this climate and I don't think I want things to be cooler than they are now; Colorado winters are more than cold enough for me. I'm just using myself as an example, and because of me and others like me the world will never be able to agree on how warm or cold the climate should be. There may be a consensus on the fact that the earth is warming, but there certainly is no consensus on whether the earth should be warming or cooling.

I think albed is right to an extent. The study of the global climate really needs to be divorced from the politics of climate change. Killing the people who are guilty of politicizing this issue is unnecessary, but calling them out for the opportunists and manipulators they are would benefit us all. The vaunted scientific consensus has brought us no closer to discovering a course of action that would please everybody, but there is no reason why we all can't profit in some way from environmental stewardship. It's becoming less and less likely that the solution is political; carbon taxes won't do the trick, buying carbon credits is a gimmick, and government subsidies for alternative energy have outlived their usefulness. Since the government doesn't hold the key to protecting the environment we should be ignoring the politicians who talk about environmental protection so we can take stewardship of the planet into our own hands.

[vernarial]

I already understand the basic chemistry. If you can figure out how to disassociate the greenhouse gasses from the toxic pollutants in the real world then thats great. I can see I assumed right from your first paragraph that you already understand the basic emmissions from burning fossil fuels also. I wasn't trying to point out facts to you, but present an opinion. Anyway...

I wish I could hold your optimism in the ability of the people to take stewardship of the planet and do a good job of it. There are good examples of individuals and even communities that have started down this road. I just don't think a signifigant enough job will be done without government regulation and/or assistance. I'm sorry to say, I don't have much faith in the majority of the population to make the right descisions and stick to them. Part of that would come from my belief that they are either being mis-informed or are just un-informed. I don't see it as a problem with the political process, but a problem with politicians. And lobbyists. And big industry polluters. After all, in a perfect world the government would be run by the people and the politicians would work for the people. And the people would have stewardship of the planet, through the political process.

[multi]

I wish I could hold your optimism in the ability of the people to take stewardship of the planet and do a good job of it.

if we don't cut the crap, and at least try to clean up our act, for the sake of future generations...the planet will be doomed to the same fate as the other similar planets in our solar system, thinking it is in god's hands is just letting it go to shit and negating any resposibility. stewardship = the need to learn how to maintain our atmosphere


Sitting in the stand of the sports arena, waiting for the show to begin.
Red lights, green lights, strawberry wine, a good friend of mine
follows the stars.....

[albed]

Originally Posted by multi

if we don't cut the crap, and at least try to clean up our act, for the sake of future generations...the planet will be doomed to the same fate as the other similar planets in our solar system, thinking it is in god's hands is just letting it go to shit and negating any resposibility. stewardship = the need to learn how to maintain our atmosphere


Sitting in the stand of the sports arena, waiting for the show to begin.
Red lights, green lights, strawberry wine, a good friend of mine
follows the stars.....

The cuckoo clock strikes twelve....lol. Back on the dope again loony?

[multi]

Back on the dope again loony?

shutup dickhead.. <yawn>

go back to the sad boring life in your head...

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by vernarial

I just don't think a signifigant enough job will be done without government regulation and/or assistance.

Assistance? Maybe, but regulation? No, that hasn't gotten us anywhere 'cause the people running the bureaucracies are same misinformed/uninformed people as the rest of the public.

[vernarial]

I agree that we need to do something, Multi, but I just don't think that the people as a whole will. I try to do my part, but from my point of view, I am in the minority. That's what I mean. Out of all the people I see and know, the majority doesn't care enough to actually put forth much if any effort.

I guess you could say that is true, Mazer. We have had government regulation that I consider to be good, but when it comes to big polluters, they can just as easily lobby to get the regulations relaxed, changed, or removed. Or just pay the fines they might get for breaking regulation, because it is still more economical for them to keep polluting and pay the fine. And because, as you said, the politicians are just as misinformed/uninformed as the rest of the public.

[albed]

Originally Posted by Mazer

That lack of data had a lot to do with the venue in which this talk was given. At TED conferences the speakers are only allowed 18 minutes, just enough time to present an idea. But his methodology and data didn't need to be presented because he wasn't actually trying to explain how to geoengineer the planet. The focus of his talk was that the taboo subject of geoengineering should be pulled out of the closet, discussed publicly and actively investigated by more climate scientists, possibly with government funding.

I was intrigued by this talk because he questioned many of the assumptions people make about global warming, primarily the the one that global warming is bad for everyone.

People don't make that assumption, they're fed bullshit propaganda telling them that. I read long ago about increased agricultural productivity, lower heating bills, easier transportation, and general economic benefit from global warming but the mass media filters those results and dishes out stupid crap about colder/hotter/wetter/drier-disaster scenarios to get a rise out of the moronic masses.

What really needs discussed is the deceptive and hypocritical people who are turning climate science into a battle of public manipulation and how to dissuade them when their idiot idolizers don't care how many lies they tell or how much global impact they create as long as they can bathe in their magnificent presence.

A firing squad seems appropriate, but throwing them out into a cold winter night in their undies has a certain poetic appeal.