Global Warming Is Not A Crisis

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

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

Wildkow

 

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.

 

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

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.

 

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

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

 

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

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>

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

 

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

 

Isn't that exactly what the IPCC did?

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

 

GW is a crisis/ not a crisis to whom?

You, me, crocodiles, sea gulls??

See, a rise in temperature by a degree or two in a decade doesn't change my life. However, we have to think about the massive ice sheets that has been fallen on to the sea. This raises the sea level by say... a foot or two in the next 50 years? (I am not sure about the exact numbers.. just making a point). Someone is Colorado has no direct implications of this. It won't be a crisis for him/her. But, how about Maldives? Andaman Islands? The entire countries will be under water. That will be a crisis.

Think of crocodiles. Their gender depends on the temperature of the eggs while they are incubating. The difference between male and female is a mere 2 degrees. Now... this could affect them.

Temperatures in the world are constantly changing. The problem here is that it is changing way too fast for many creatures to adapt for it. We have to think about them too.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Mar 20 2007, 09:44 AM) [snapback]408860[/snapback]</div>

Would you have welcomed Al Gore onto the panel? He's a scientist, right?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Mar 20 2007, 09:19 AM) [snapback]408872[/snapback]</div>

Depends- how much stock do you own in ExxonMobil?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Mar 20 2007, 01:35 PM) [snapback]408878[/snapback]</div>

I wouldn't. I'd have preferred just climate scientists on both sides.

But I suppose that's a bit too idealistic. Scientists aren't necessarily great at presenting their arguments to a lay audience. Maybe both sides needed one "communicator", and the rest being scientists.

Or you could go even further, and go for the court-room approach - two "lawyers", and the scientists as witnesses.

It's certainly imbalanced though if it's scientists on one sides versus communicators on the other side. The former would win over an audience of scientists, the latter would win over an audience of laypeople. That seems to be what happened here, indeed.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Mar 20 2007, 09:35 AM) [snapback]408878[/snapback]</div>

no, just a well documented looooser searching for another spotlight to focus on him. he should just go back to his large carbon footprint somewhere in nowheresville, TN and resume his fossil fuel consuming life style.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Mar 20 2007, 01:52 AM) [snapback]408824[/snapback]</div>

Oh, yes. Scientists always take polls of random people to see if their hypotheses are correct, this the standard methodology.

 

Crichton I've never been able to take seriously after I read his 1988 autobiography Travels. Some choice tidbits below:

The kind of evidence I have seen for clairvoyance or telepathy -- evidence that leads me to accept these phenomena as unquestionably real -- I have not experienced for the idea of past lives....

Of course, spoon bending has been the focus of long-standing controversy. Uri Gellar, an Israeli magician, who claims psychic powers, often bends spoons, but other magicians, such a James Randi, claim that spoon bending isn't a psychic phenomenon at all, just a trick...But I had bent a spoon, and I knew it wasn't at trick.... This seems to me to confirm the idea that so-called psychic or paranormal phenomena are misnamed. There's nothing abnormal about them. On the contrary, they're utterly normal. We've just forgotten we can do them. The minute we do do them, we recognize them for what they are and think, So what? ...

When I got home, I looked at people to see if I could still see auras. I could. It's fun to do. When dinner parties get boring, you just look at people's auras.
I somehow just can't take the guy seriously as a climate scientist. Even though The Andromeda Strain still rocks as a page-turner book.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Mar 20 2007, 10:08 AM) [snapback]408887[/snapback]</div>

i do NOT hate algore - i feel sorry for him, he is sooo pathetic. if he were not born into a wealthy family he would probably in, according to johnkerry, in Iraq :lol:

Him creating positive change - lets see - HE HAD 8 FEAKEN YEARS IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND DID WHAT?

Now that he wants to angle back in there, or he wants some headlines, he creates an issue for himself that touches the correct buttons - and amazing enough - does not follow his own advice and even owns the carbon company he buys credits from - HOW IRONIC - SUCH A LOOOOOSER.

i am not concerned about algore - he has enough money for lifetimes - he is just missing the supratentorial portion of life. so sad, he could have followed in kennedy's footsteps (he would have to be alert and agile for that :lol: ) and done something besides the weight gain.

it is just tooo easy - and to think the dems ran him for president - ooopha - did we all get lucky there. God does intervene in mysterious ways.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Mar 20 2007, 10:49 AM) [snapback]408902[/snapback]</div>

and you take algore seriously at least Crichton is self-made, a VERY successful author, a med school graduate, very smart guy. algore is :

self made: N
smart: ?
successful author: ? successful movie producer - Y - non-fiction, hot button topic of the year


algore - proof that inheritance outways environment and nuture and nature

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Mar 20 2007, 10:49 AM) [snapback]408902[/snapback]</div>

I was never able to take Crichton seriously after seeing "Disclosure." What guy would sue a company for sexual harassment because Demi Moore forced him to have sex with her? :lol: