So says Brian.
He’s a Global Warming skeptic. Like these guys:
… Some global warming skeptics in the science or political community dispute all or some of the global warming scientific consensus objecting to whether global warming is actually occurring, if human activity is truly to blame, and if the threat is as great a threat as has been alleged. Prominent global warming skeptics include Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, Patrick Michaels, John Christy, and Robert Balling. …
Of course there are pro-industry, right wing idiots that deny global warming as a knee jerk reaction.
But there are also serious scientists that feel there is not enough evidence. That the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has jumped the gun. Especially the “hockey stick” graph.
Read about critics here.
Or read a mainstream media article – BBC – What happened to global warming? That’s written by the Climate correspondent, BBC News.
You’ve heard skeptics before.
… But Brian now declares that global skepticism will be WIDELY covered by the mainstream media by Christmas.
Let’s see if he’s right.
We could go back to worrying about the next ice age.
Me, I’ve done no research at all. There are many bigger problems in the world occupying my attention.
Rick McCharles 
Did we not have higher levels of global pollution (both aerial and aquatic) during the industrial revolution of the 1800’s Rick? I do not believe there was a global warming effect reported during those times. Or even a hint of one…
Hi George,
I think that the problem lies in notions of absolute and relative. Those producer who were producing products in the past may have been relatively greater polluters than those of today, however, the sheer volume of production today more than offsets any benefits in terms of cleaner production mechanisms.
Also, with regards to the problem of global warming, the problem does not lie with all types of pollution, but rather with the production of carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gasses like Nitrogen oxides). And, the atmospheric concentrations of those have clearly risen in the last 100 years (http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA3.html).
Clearly, through our actions, we are changing the composition of our atmosphere. The best experts in the field (the IPCC) feel that those changes, if they are not mitigated, will have devastating consequences for the continued prospering of our species.
I’m not saying that it’s not good to be a skeptic, but don’t you think that it would be prudent to hedge our bets on the side of caution?
Let’s say the Earth is warming, Dave. Due partly to greenhouse gasses.
What do we do about it?
Is it realistic to expect China to cut back?
How much money are people willing to spend to cut gasses?
And how do we know when the so-called “threshold” has been passed?
====
I don’t know if Global Warming is fact or not. If it is, I’d be very surprised if we can do much about it globally.
I’ve no problem cutting back on greenhouse gases. But not because of Climate Change. Rather because those industries releasing greenhouse gases are not sustainable. We need to find alternate (hopefully cleaner, safer) fuel sources.
Global Warming is spurring those efforts, even if it’s a myth.
… But let’s not lie about the Earth warming if it’s not true.
Why would Paul Hudson, Climate correspondent, BBC News, say this:
“For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.”
Is he wrong?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
Hey Rick,
In fact, China has started to make improvements on the environmental front (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7972125.stm). So, yes, I do think it realistic.
I think that a change in thinking needs to occur- there are huge spillover costs (or in economic terms negative externalities) in continuing to pursue business as normal. Besides polluting our air (and perhaps causing global warming), an increased level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is also contributing to the acidification of the world’s oceans. CO2 + H20 —> H2CO3. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification). The impact may include a reduction in the food productivity of the oceans.
So, if both increasing global temperatures and decreasing oceanic pH have the potential to significantly and negatively impact food production, I don’t see why we would argue to continue business as usual.
And if we do argue to continue business as usual, it seems as if we are taking this position: 1) We are changing the environment. 2) While those changes have the potential to have an adverse effect, those effects have not been demonstrated. So, 3) because there is no demonstrated effect, there is no point in changing our way of life.
That argument is akin to: 1) I like to drink some bright orange liquid that someone (with quite a bit of authority in the field) has told me is poisonous. 2) No one has ever drank the liquid, so it is not demonstratively poisonous. So, 3) I am going to continue drinking that liquid.
I would still argue for the hedging of bets in this matter.
Lastly, you might want to read that article from the BBC more closely. The author does include an analysis of the current climate data and potential contributors. Also, he does not take a side…
You might be right, Dave.
I really am blowing smoke. I have no idea what I’m talking about. …
But Brian has spent hundreds of hours researching the actual “warming” part. I respect his opinion.
And I’ll be very surprised if he’s incorrect about a swing in media coverage of the issue.
The interesting thing about the BBC article is that it came from the BBC, which up to now has been a staunch defender (instead of detached reporter) of the meme of global warming. The fact that the BBC does not “take a side” should therefore be seen as a sea change in itself.
Here in Canada the only paper I know of that does not follow the alarmist party line is the National Post. Now that the BBC is being seen to be rethinking a long-held policy, my thinking is that other mainstream news outlets are going to “take permission” to take a more critical look.
It will be long overdue. Here in Alberta, with nary a peep from such media powerhouses as the Calgary Herald, the Alberta Government is about to spend $2 BILLION on carbon capture technology. People don’t seem to mind, thinking this is the cost of caution (as Dave discusses above). But if more CO2 in the atmosphere is NOT the catastrophe that we have been told, this is very literally digging a hold in the ground and burying $2 billion in it. One wonders what effect the government could have if they took that $2 billion and spent it on cleaning up the Athabasca River (downstream from the tar sands).
chopbox, … why do you hate our planet?
Do you crush baby birds too?
Holding up the National ComPost … yer as bad as Brian.
Anonymous green commenter … 🙂