Global Warming Is Not A Crisis

[TimBikes]

While I agree that we are using too much in the way of fossil fuels and pumping prodigious amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and that all else being equal, this will lead to some amount of temperature rise - I personally do not believe GW is a "crisis".

In a recent debate on whether global warming is a crisis, it appears that the "skeptics" won the night handily.

"Before the debate, not-a-crisis got 30 percent of the vote. After, the number rose to 46 percent. The is-a-crisis tally dropped from 57 to 42."

Of course this neither proves nor disproves whether Global Warming is in fact a crisis, but does show that members of the audience found merit enough in the "it's not a crisis argument" to be swayed to a more skeptical position.

See here for recap

See here for a lengthy transcript

[Wildkow]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Mar 20 2007, 12:52 AM) [snapback]408824[/snapback]</div>

While I agree that we are using too much in the way of fossil fuels and pumping prodigious amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and that all else being equal, this will lead to some amount of temperature rise - I personally do not believe GW is a "crisis".

In a recent debate on whether global warming is a crisis, it appears that the "skeptics" won the night handily.

"Before the debate, not-a-crisis got 30 percent of the vote. After, the number rose to 46 percent. The is-a-crisis tally dropped from 57 to 42."

Of course this neither proves nor disproves whether Global Warming is in fact a crisis, but does show that members of the audience found merit enough in the "it's not a crisis argument" to be swayed to a more skeptical position.

See here for recap

See here for a lengthy transcript
[/b]

Very telling and a bit reassuring that people are still thinking out there. Good find and well done.

Wildkow

[tripp]

Tim, you're a right bastard. I just read the entire transcript and it's well after 2 AM.


First off: Why the hell were Michael Crichton and Brenda Ekwurzel on this panel? Neither of them offered anything relevant to the discussion.

One thing I did find interesting is that the whole thing was framed as "Is GW a crisis" instead of "is anthropogenic global warming real". It would seem that there was consensus among panelists that we are indeed increasing global avg temps. There were many references to humans having an impact on the climate past and present. Hence the rephrasing of the question. Which is fine. Progress perhaps.

I think Philip Stott was spot on when he warned about this becoming a political power grab, using GW as a political tool to manipulate folks and he's right the that Europeans have been disingenuous. There's the potential for grave ecological damage from overdoing biofuels. He mentions that too. Of course, that doesn't speak to the issue at hand, but they were points worth mentioning.

I think that the risk management approach is the best one. True, we don't know precisely the magnitude of the risks, but considering that decarbonization of the energy mix solves so many issues (not just environmental ones) we'd be foolish not to pursue it. That doesn't mean that we go "14th century" either. What we need is balance and an understanding of the problems at hand.

[KMO]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Mar 20 2007, 09:27 AM) [snapback]408830[/snapback]</div>

One thing I did find interesting is that the whole thing was framed as "Is GW a crisis" instead of "is anthropogenic global warming real". It would seem that there was consensus among panelists that we are indeed increasing global avg temps. There were many references to humans having an impact on the climate past and present. Hence the rephrasing of the question. Which is fine. Progress perhaps.
[/b]

It is very notable that the skeptics have been forced to keep taking steps back. The movement has been totally in one direction in the last decade or so.

Certainly in 2000 or so there were plenty of people who would stand up with a straight face and deny that there was any warming happening.

Now they've given up on that, and they've started talking about sunspots, and trying to deny that it's anything to do with the gigatonnes of carbon we've pumped into the atmosphere.

In this debate they've realised that's somewhat futile, so they've taken another step back, admitted that it's (mainly) down to us, and started arguing about predictions.

That won't last much longer - every year gives more data about how rapidly we're warming.

So the next fallback will be the Bjorn Lomborg argument - that it's too expensive to do anything about it.

After that, they'll finally fall back to their real argument - that they find the actions required to alleviate it politically objectionable.

It is very telling that the opponents could only find one climatologist for their side of the debate. Or at least thought that a fiction novelist would be more persuasive.

[hycamguy07]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Mar 20 2007, 03:52 AM) [snapback]408824[/snapback]</div>

While I agree that we are using too much in the way of fossil fuels and pumping prodigious amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and that all else being equal, this will lead to some amount of temperature rise - I personally do not believe GW is a "crisis".

In a recent debate on whether global warming is a crisis, it appears that the "skeptics" won the night handily.

"Before the debate, not-a-crisis got 30 percent of the vote. After, the number rose to 46 percent. The is-a-crisis tally dropped from 57 to 42."

Of course this neither proves nor disproves whether Global Warming is in fact a crisis, but does show that members of the audience found merit enough in the "it's not a crisis argument" to be swayed to a more skeptical position.

See here for recap

See here for a lengthy transcript
[/b]

Dude watch your back, the lefties are going to start throwing rocks & knives at you!! For posting what you think

[larkinmj]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Mar 20 2007, 03:52 AM) [snapback]408824[/snapback]</div>

While I agree that we are using too much in the way of fossil fuels and pumping prodigious amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and that all else being equal, this will lead to some amount of temperature rise - I personally do not believe GW is a "crisis".

In a recent debate on whether global warming is a crisis, it appears that the "skeptics" won the night handily.

"Before the debate, not-a-crisis got 30 percent of the vote. After, the number rose to 46 percent. The is-a-crisis tally dropped from 57 to 42."

Of course this neither proves nor disproves whether Global Warming is in fact a crisis, but does show that members of the audience found merit enough in the "it's not a crisis argument" to be swayed to a more skeptical position.

See here for recap

See here for a lengthy transcript
[/b]

Of course- that's how to solve the issue of global warming- just have people vote on it like "American Idol"


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Mar 20 2007, 05:27 AM) [snapback]408830[/snapback]</div>

Tim, you're a right bastard. I just read the entire transcript and it's well after 2 AM.
First off: Why the hell were Michael Crichton and Brenda Ekwurzel on this panel? Neither of them offered [/b]

Michael Crichton wrote a fictional book about global warming- that makes him an "expert". Just like he's an "expert", I suppose, on dinosaurs.

[dbermanmd]

Tim, you're a right bastard. I just read the entire transcript and it's well after 2 AM.
First off: Why the hell were Michael Crichton and Brenda Ekwurzel on this panel? Neither of them offered anything relevant to the discussion.

people wonder the same thing about algore who has never offered anything relevant ever except being born with a silver foot in his mouth.

[/quote]
I think Philip Stott was spot on when he warned about this becoming a political power grab, using GW as a political tool to manipulate folks and he's right the that Europeans have been disingenuous. There's the potential for grave ecological damage from overdoing biofuels. He mentions that too. Of course, that doesn't speak to the issue at hand, but they were points worth mentioning.

I think that the risk management approach is the best one. True, we don't know precisely the magnitude of the risks, but considering that decarbonization of the energy mix solves so many issues (not just environmental ones) we'd be foolish not to pursue it. That doesn't mean that we go "14th century" either. What we need is balance and an understanding of the problems at hand.
[/quote]

agreed - this is a power grab and we do have to be reasonable and proactive

[efusco]

None of the panelists disputed the assertion that the world's climate is changing or that humans are partly responsible. Those things, all agreed, always have been true.[/b]

but then

The no-crisis panelists argued strenuously that the catastrophe is nowhere near and that efforts to solve the alleged crisis will only make thing worse. That's the thing to be alarmed about, they said.[/b]

Could someone please tell me how changing to CFLs, reducing fossil fuel use, driving a Prius, expanding wind and solar energy use, and reducing CO2 productiong could "only make thing[s] worse".

[adam1991]

Of course- that's how to solve the issue of global warming- just have people vote on it like "American Idol"[/b]

Isn't that exactly what the IPCC did?

This is a power grab, probably more so than anything else.

[efusco]

And I agree...this was more about the definition of a "crisis" than it was about the human impact on GW and what we can or should do about it. And I don't think most of us concerned about GW view it as an immediate crisis, but rather something that we need to start addressing now to avoid a crisis in the coming decades.

My bottom line is that making intelligent changes will definately have positive effects now (reduced pollution and it's health concequences to asthmatics and others, reduced foriegn oil dependence, etc.) and may have future benefits. I can't imagine a way that any of those things could ever cause more harm than good.