This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Is fighting climate change a losing battle?
Climate change is and will impact us all. As alluded to, there are many countries who unfortunately stand to make very substantial financial gains from this.
What is likely to be the most successful way of fighting this battle? Who is likely to make the biggest impact - our fellow citizens or our Governments?
Anthony Maw
Lee Miller 10+
Nilam Shah 500+
Andrew Spence 20+
Scott Koenraadt
natasha nikulina 50+
I love your avatar ! Sometimes i feel ashamed to belong to human race. : (
andrew jones
richard moody jr 10+
Even after 99% of all scientists are absolutely convinced that climate change is driven by burning of fossil fuels, there will be countries that continue to burn them---including us.
andrew jones
chen xin
maybe in the future we will research out some other clean fuels then i think it is unnecessary to use the normal fossil fuels .
ad how do we surive without burning fossil , you say when we use up the ,we must find out the succedaneum as soon as possible .or we may face another big problem .
we must live a much saving life . then we may have a much longer life .
richard moody jr 10+
Our best hope is that we are going to go into a cooling period as some climate specialists believe for the next 20-40 years before warming resumes. When the next ice age arrrives we might need our coal to spread coal dust on the advancing glaciers to warm them up!
natasha nikulina 50+
But we haven't lost yet , i am hopeful :)
andrew jones
walter crockett
richard moody jr 10+
Jun 22, 2010
Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real
Comments 1157
By Doyle Rice, USA TODAY
Updated 2010-06-22 5:43 PM
Forget the four out of five dentists who recommend Trident…. Try the 97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate change.
This data comes from a new survey out this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The study found that 97 percent of scientific experts agree that climate change is "very likely" caused mainly by human activity.
The report is based on questions posed to 1,372 scientists. Nearly all the experts agreed that it is "very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the unequivocal warming of the Earth's average global temperature in the second half of the twentieth century."
Mirek Mráz 100+
In my opinion, this fight should be about something completely different (I wouldn't call it fight, rather a quest) and should envolve making small changes and spark discussion so that people start to rethink, or rather to think for themselves, in wider perspective. That is what TED is about.
Colleen Steen 500+
Fighting suggests struggle, so it does not seem like an appropriate term to use with our environment. We need to be good stewards and protect our environment which sustains us, and that begins with each and every one of us as individuals. I like using the word "quest" Mirek, and I think you are absolutely right to suggest small changes, which may cause people to be more aware. Sometimes, people get overwhelmed when looking at the big picture, and if each of us takes care of our own little space, it may add up to a big change around our world.
I am grateful to have been born into a family who recycled, reused, restored, renovated, managed money well (never buy anything we cannot afford to pay cash for), had a HUGE garden and grew our own healthy food, which meant we worked in the garden and experienced the whole process of planting, weeding, preserving, and enjoying:>)
That was 60+ years ago, when we were not aware of any threat to our environment. We just DID IT because it felt like the thing to do....it made sense to take care of the environment that sustains us. That is what I learned, and that is how I have lived my life. To me, it is not a struggle or a fight to be aware of our environment.....it is a pleasure:>)
chen xin
your lifestyle makes think of the acient chinese poets.you can look for some materias
they are a kind of people who live a life full of freedom and happiness they plant at the sunrise .and rest at the sunset.when they are happy ,they just take out their wine and drink at the same they create poems ..very be pleased . they live just like the seventeenth england ,which you
can see in the london Olympic opening ceremony..i think we are more pleased because we can drink .
i also think they live a life of envioriment-friendly ..maybe we should learn from the acient people .they are much more smarter on enviorment issues.
Juliette Zahn 50+
Iulian Sociale Ingegnere
chen xin
Henry Woeltjen 10+
Not so sure the planet is in danger....life may be though. If we want to take that seriously...we may want to look at how sensitive life is. One major shift in climate can have major impacts on life in every crevice of the planet.
Green energy is not just a catch phrase for politicians. Green energy and green industry are not center pieces for debate...as they should be. Instead we discuss business taxes and profit-margins.
lynn eschbach 30+
Arjuna Nagendran
Even the fair representation ethos of democracies is not entirely robust in itself, hence the connotations of the term "politics".
Our Governments are made of us, but once you are part of an organisation, of which Government is just one, you tend to guide your decision making on what's best for that organisation. In the case of Governments, that can sometimes err to becoming what is best for politicians rather than the country..
Ken brown 30+
F. Swemson
First, it would never have a statistically meaningful effect, and
Second, the premise is wrong. WARMING IS GOOD!
The only type of climate change that is dangerous to us is extreme cooling. The reason is simple enough to see... When it's colder, crops don't grow as well as when it's warmer. History has shown this to be true, with almost all of the high points of human civilization, like the pinnacle of the Roman Empire, occurring at the warmest periods in our recorded history.
fs
Ken brown 30+
F. Swemson
So I certainly am not claiming that the far smaller population of the middle ages had any effect on their climate...
It's the sun... it's natural & it's good!
fs
Jamie Osborne
F. Swemson
If you wish to argue any point I might make. do so with facts, not insults.
You can start by coming up with an explanation for the temperature record of the mid 1940's through the 70's. Here's the facts:
http://www.swemson.com/upl/G3.jpg
Let's see how smart you are....
fs
Jamie Osborne
You, (a newspaper ad guy, who through your comments in this forum have demonstrated an inability to understand either the science or the implications of climate change), are asking me (someone you don't know) to give you the "facts" that 97% of qualified scientists use to disagree with you?
I hope you appreciate that this leaves me in a very uncomfortable position - A position where ad-hominem seems to be the only reasonable response…
I'll try to avoid that unpleasant path though, because you are obviously passionate, and seem to enjoy researching... Instead, I'll ask you a couple of polite and genuine questions:
1) Have you done any research into the psychology of climate change denial?
2) Can you tell us why you want so passionately to be right on this one?
I look forward to your considered response to 2, in particular.
All the best.
Jamie
george lockwood 20+
Robert Winner 50+
I am not a creditable source so this is opinion ... my reading indicates that wind does not give me the bang for the bucks ... solar is better but I am concerned about the storage capabilities and the high initial buyin and the recurring cost for the batteries . if bio-fuels such as algae generated fuels can be maximizzed then the power problems would be delayed and dependence on fossil fuels would be lessened ... much has been done with hydronginated water and should not be overlooked as cars can be fueled and wielding equipment can be operated and on and on .. the use of corn and other crop fuels is in my mind questionable.
The impact is absolute .. the facts are questionable ... nature is constantly adjusting ... humans can and have adapted .. and the biggest question you pose the FIGHT is never over .... only if we quit do we lose.
The major factor IMO is to get government out of the process and allow free interprise develop and market a for profit solution. The worst possible idea is to turn taxpayers money loose (THAT OCCURS TO MUCH ALREADY) on any problem it has always become a moneypit and will develop into a multibillion dollar a year agency with staffs of millions.
The Dept of Energy (US) was to stop the import of oil ... now staff of 1000s and BIG budget .. result we import more.
Out of space ..... Bob.
gerard3161 jones
Current crisis on every level are showing us that we have to change our ways, because we are totaly connected to eachother and every negative or positive action has an outcome in wich intention it was originally planned.
If we stop our wasting ,over excessif, planet ruining way of life and begin to think about to obtain skills that help whole society instead value the money and material things as more important in life, Then all of humanity can grow and become a part of nature and live in harmony with it.
Climate change will be reduced or be in balance ,and nature will recover.
We are integral connected throughout the whole world only we dont know it yet.
What can help us is global education wich teaches us the laws of nature.
http://www.learnglobal.net/about/
chen xin
i do think the nature has itself adjusted system . we shouldn't do much about it . what we should do is reduce our waste . and live a natural life .
Ricky Barrington
Dan Gillgren
7 billion on the planet right now are having a negative impact on the environment.
Populous countries such as India and China are generating more wealth each year, and therefore it is natural to assume that consumption in these and other poorer countries is only going to increase over time. Greater consumption is going to lead to more manufacturing and more pollution. Not everyone is going to be a consumer, but with upwards of 10 billion people by 2100, it is rather frightening to start thinking about how many of these 10 billion will be consumers, all wanting the latest iPhones, DVD players, LCD televisions...
You can have all the fancy schemes you can think of to try and combat "global warming" eg bio fuels, solar/wind energy, but the real underlying issue is uncontrolled world population growth. We're already starting to see the consequences. The Great Barrier Reef is slowly being destroyed partly due to human activities on land. Destruction of the natural world will only increase as the world population increases.
When we hit the 10 billion mark at around the year 2100 or so, I believe global warming is going to be a lesser concern over and above "competition" over resources such as food, clean water, and raw materials for manufacturing, and the resulting destruction to the environment.
I'd like to end this by highlighting the stupidity of mankind... The Australian Govt is quite prepared to spend over $40 billion on a national broadband network. Yet, the current petroleum distribution network can't be replaced by hydrogen because it is "too expensive". I have no idea how much it would cost, but $40 billion would go a heck of a long way towards paying for a move towards hydrogen fueled vehicles and the refueling infrastructure.
Richard Hutchings
Dan Gillgren
The original question on global warming is really a subset of a broader range of questions regarding humanity and what actions it needs to take to ensure longevity of existence. I'd like to see humanity get behind the "Mars-One" project. Having a colony on Mars is an insurance policy against catastrophic events on Earth, and perhaps then we could sleep a little better at night.
I agree as well that our planet cools and warms over time. The next ice age will be interesting for sure. The issue of global warming is very complex. We install solar panels while at the same time we destroy forests, we empty our oceans of fish, and continue to build weapons that have the potential to wipe life off the planet many times over. Governments talk about needing to grow their economy, and some governments even have policies that boost immigration to support economic growth.
Governments are part of the problem not the solution, and that if we all sit back waiting for governments to do something, then we will be waiting a heck of a long time. Or even if they manage to implement something like a carbon tax, it is all ultimately meaningless for all of the reasons mentioned in my original reply.
A complex situation indeed, and the best place to start is with each individual ie the choices we make and things we can do to make positive change.
shawn disney 10+
But there IS a way to deal with carbon burning pollution, and several other major problems at the same time: let's start using the Thorium LFTR power plants, cheap , plentiful fuel, no significant pollution, a million times the energy density of oil and coal. It even can run on Uranium LWR plants nuclear waste material.
As for the population problem, that seems to be a self correcting one. Those who have reached a sort of middle class level of civilization do not seem to have large families as they did when they were peasants. The rate of increase in many countries is below replacement, and as Feminism spreads, will no doubt go even lower. Also, if we get Thorium power going, we will be able to save all that money wasted on windmills, solar panels, transmission lines, etc, which are simply not economical, and can be shown to be inadequate.
Jamie Osborne
Derek Young 30+
F. Swemson
I urge everyone to look at their website at: http://www.climatescienceinternational.org
-------------
CLIMATE SCIENCE
Global climate is always changing in accordance with natural causes and recent changes are not unusual.
Science is rapidly evolving away from the view that humanity's emissions of carbon dioxide and other 'greenhouse gases' are a cause of dangerous climate change.
Climate models used by the IPCC* fail to reproduce known past climates without manipulation and therefore lack the scientific integrity needed for use in climate prediction and related policy decision-making.
The UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers and the assertions of IPCC executives too often seriously mis-represent the conclusions of their own scientific reports.
Claims that ‘consensus’ exists among climate experts regarding the causes of the modest warming of the past century are contradicted by thousands of independent scientists.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant - it is a necessary reactant in plant photosynthesis and so is essential for life on Earth.
Research that identifies the Sun as a major driver of global climate change must be taken more seriously.
Global cooling has presented serious problems for human society and the environment throughout history while global warming has generally been highly beneficial.
It is not possible to reliably predict how climate will change in the future, beyond the certainty that multi-decadal warming and cooling trends, and abrupt changes, will all continue, underscoring a need for effective adaptation.
Since science and observation have failed to substantiate the human-caused climate change hypothesis, it is premature to damage national economies with `carbon' taxes, emissions trading or other schemes to control 'greenhouse gas' emissions.
--------------
If you seek a rational view of the climate issue, don't listen to the alarmists.
fs
Jamie Osborne
Tom Harris
If you had simply clicked on our "Funding" button on any of our Web pages, beside putting your comments out to the world, you would discover that your accusation is also wrong since we have no funding from corporations of any kind, let alone, fossil fuel companies. You accusation is just made up.
If you disagree with any of our core messages, as a TEDster, please address that only instead of debasing your argument by committing logical fallacies based on made up information.
Tom Harris International Climate Science Coalition
Jamie Osborne
I was talking to F. Swemson actually not you guys, but since you ask, I am perfectly aware of who the ICSC is. I know of your links with the Heartland Institute and other "private" individual skeptics. I'm rather surprised to hear you suggest that none of your private donors make their money from fossil fuels though?
Still, I think it is wonderful that you've stopped by TED because this is a fantastic opportunity for TEDsters to learn a little about what makes such a high-profile climate change denier tick…? Will you humour me with a response to the same question that I asked of FS earlier?
> Can you tell us why you want so passionately to be right on this?
Please don't give us a cut'n'paste of that disingenuous BS on your site about caring about the economics of proposed responses to climate change though (I know you're an engineer, not an economist) - I'm far more interested in what makes you *personally* want to get out of bed every day and keep on fighting your fight? It must be really hard to be so misunderstood?
Arjuna Nagendran
Obviously making an impact on a Governmental level is very hard - summit after summit really amounts to peanuts. Maybe a way to modernise the way in which they are bartering could be to create a Free (or semi free) Trade area of countries that comply with massive shifts to renewable energy and who can prove they are majorly reducing their global CO2 output..
Maybe that's one way to subvert those countries who might conspire FOR climate change, like those Arctic circle countries. The minority of countries that stands to gain from climate change must surely be outweighed by those who stand to lose or stand to get no benefit? It would also incentivise these countries to spend more on renewables for the trade benefits that they would be permitted!
Roberto Garcia
Juniper Blue 10+
F. Swemson
Calling me names and insulting me is par for the course for far left smear merchants.
Everything you've written is pure leftist propaganda. The US Govt has spent close to $60Billion on this bogus research in the last 4 years alone. Your so called experts aren't practicing science, they're practicing grantsmanship.
You claim my graph is bogus. It was created by Dr. Willie Soon at Harvard. SInce you say it's bogus, try explaining how temperatures were able to go down consistently from the 1940's through the mid 1970's, when CO2 content in the atmosphere was rising so rapidly at that time. Your entire BS story is based on the relationship between temperature change and CO2 levels in the period from the mid 1970's to about 1998. That's pretty thin evidence.
Before there was this: http://www.swemson.com/upl/Warming.jpg
There was this: http://www.swemson.com/upl/Cooling.jpg
Go to the archives of the NY Times online and do a simple search on headlines about climate change. You'll see the same lies being repeated since the newspaper began: Save yourself the trouble, & see it here:
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/01/24/159-years-of-climate-alarmism-at-the-new-york-times/
Anyone wanting proof that CO2 is not a pollutant should watch the following short time lapse video showing the effect of increased CO2 on plant growth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJvvYlBP-_Y
Do you know what happened to Al Gore's Sci Fi Horror Fantasy film in the UK, when they started showing it in public schools? It got busted for violating a UK law prohibiting the political indoctrination of children in their public schools. You can read all about Al Gore's lies and exaggerations here:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
The author of the report offered to put up a $1 Million prize if Al Gore would debate him on the subject in public. Gore's been hiding under his desk ever since. Your scam is over. The truth always comes out in the end.
FS
Jamie Osborne
W. Ying 10+
Quitting silly INVALID happiness and all problems will be easy to solve.
To quit INVALID happiness is easy if one know the silliness of INVALID happiness.
Dan F 50+
A losing battle? It does appears to be accelerating and there does exist something called the lag effect.
Changing the status quo is difficult at best. This means the way things have been done historically tends to protect how thing will be done in the future. This reality is at the center of addressing this problem and a fundamental hurdle for slowing this climate tend to the extent we can.
At one time, not so long ago, the oceans were considered so big, the skies so vast how could human activity have any adverse impact? Does anyone still believe that? There have been some significant private and regulatory efforts resulting in more accountable business behavior because smart inventors, engineers and technology, etc., enabled a better way to operate to minimize environmental impacts.
This problem is different because solutions are more esoteric, more costly or don't exist, not to mention the politics that enters the fray. Energy production and consumption are at the heart of what's adding to the warming problem. So where and how to begin to battle the status quo?
shawn disney 10+
Dan F 50+
Just spotted it on a past TED talk. I'll check it out. Thanks.
F. Swemson
Fighting climate change is a total waste of time. Climate is ALWAYS changing. It's been that way for billions of years, and it will continue to change. Get used to it!
The only rational thing that man can do about it is adapt to it. We cannot change it, and anyone who says that we're causing climate change is either wrong or a liar. CO2 has virtually nothing to do with climate change, and it is not a pollutant. There is nothing unusual or extreme about our climate right now. There is no climate crisis. The primary cause of climate change is the sun. There are other factors of course, but they're all minor or local or short term / temporary.
And BTW: Warming is good! The only type of climate change which poses any threat to life on earth is extreme cooling, and we're entering what promises to be a prolonged cooling period right now based upon what we know about repeating cycles of solar activity. The globalists at the UN are counting on it to help them implement Agenda 21 which calls for reduction of human population by over 90%. These sociopaths are doing everything they can to insure that as many millions as possible starve to death. That's why they're forcing us to put such a big portion of our corn crop into our gas tanks.
Do your own research. Don't listen to what the alarmists are telling you. It's all a lie motivated by politics and greed.
Don't worry about the climate. It's not a problem. For a rational and entertaining perspective on the entire issue, listen to what George Carlin had to say about it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4
fs
Eduardo Jezierski
Yes change is constant. Just imagine - Even your anti-climate-change politically-driven speaking points have changed too! They've been debunked for a while. You might want to get them refreshed, so at least you can argue with some sense of self respect. You know, because you are unlikely to get anyone else's.
F. Swemson
One of the fun and interesting blogs to visit is Real Science. Its editor, Steven Goddard, recently posted the following facts regarding this year’s weather.
Quietest tornado summer on record.
Quietest hurricane summer on record.
Quietest long term hurricane period since the Civil War.
No global warming for 16 years.
No change in sea level rise rates.
Record cold in the Midwest.
Average fire season.
A cyclical drought affecting portions of the country.
Another interesting tidbit appeared there today:
It is clear that Wyoming is being overwhelmed by greenhouse gases.
If every person in Wyoming represented one molecule in the atmosphere, only one person would be a methane molecule. All of the CO2 would be represented by half the students at one elementary school in Cheyenne.
This last point illuminates one of the most obvious flaws in the AGW theory.
1: CO2, at roughly 390ppm, is roughly 4/10ths of 1% of the atmosphere, and less than 1/2 of 1 % of total CO2 comes from human activity. That's 16ppm or 1 part in every 62,500 in our atmosphere. And THAT statistically insignificant amount of a clear, odorless and tasteless trace gas is posing a threat to life on earth?
2: CO2 levels on earth have been as high as 1800ppm, however since a doubling of CO2 will only produce a temperature increase of 0.8°C, it's not statistically possible for human activity to produce the results you imply.
3: How much CO2 is too much for our planet? Since the average CO2 levels in crowded nightclubs & submarines is typically 6,000ppm to 8,000ppm, it seems once again, that it's statistically impossible for human activity to cause warming.
Here's all the proof you need:
http://www.swemson.com/upl/G3.jpg
Remember the following and you'll be OK:
It's the SUN STUPID!
CO2 is NOT a pollutant!
Warming is Good!
fs
Eduardo Jezierski
I was presenting at AAAS last meeting and a big % of the conference was about climate change; and species-survival level topics. Climate change is "Widely discredited" by selfish ignoramus like you, sure.
Re: your feeble points it's not a trend:
How about the following tidbits(which may be easier to comprehend than some statistical lingo)
- Every year since 1992 has been warmer than 1992
- The ten hottest years on record occurred in the last 15
- Every year since 1976 has been warmer than 1976
- The 20 hottest years on record occurred in the last 25
- Every year since 1964 has been warmer than 1956
- Every year since 1917 has been warmer than 1917
The five year mean global temperature in 1910 was .8 C lower than the five year mean in 2002. This, and all of the above, come from the temperature analysis by NASA GISS, a great resource:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/ for last year, for example
Your "people in Wyoming being molecules" thing is hilarious. How many elementary students there are in Cheyenne is supposed to be related to healthy levels of CO2 in the atmosphere? How about this- if all the Wyoming folks were molecules of water, if just one of them was an Uranium atom, the water would be poisonous for you to drink.
Yup, trace materials can have a big influence. So the fact that numbers are little doesn't mean their effects are little.
To your numbered points
1: Yes
2: A doubling of CO2 will cause a 0.8°C difference? I won't even engage on this troll line.
3: So the fact that people can be for a while in an environment without all the complexity of the earth and its atmosphere and the sun and in which life has evolved is supposed to be demonstration that it would be healthy for the planet to have that composition? Spare us additional fallacies.
Sincerely I one day hope you grow a pair and apologize to your children.
Sorry to everyone else for feeding the trolls.
Eduardo Jezierski
You have chosen two not very significant variables over a convenient timeframe to show correlation. And no link to data. Are we supposed to believe JPGs from your website just because they are "charts"? Lol. Enjoy your chevron paycheck.
richard moody jr 10+
As a geologist it is obvious at some point in the future we will experience additional ice ages. Excess CO2 enhances plant growth and the only good news about sea level rise is that it is not accelerating (at least according to one report I've read on tidal gauges). Also, a USGS geologist pointed out that in the past, first you get warming and only an increase in CO2 levels 300 years later not vice versa.
Forcing effects from the sun are different from forcing effects of CO2 warming. If it is sun driven then the stratosphere warms and the troposphere cools. If it is driven by CO2 then the troposphere warms and the stratosphere cools. This is what we observe.
We will not decrease CO2 levels in the midst of a global recession. In the States we are bombarded with ads for "clean" coal. Our whole energy policy of both candidates is to increase our "energy independence" with an increase in coal mining and additional oil and gas drilling using fracking. There is so much cheap natural gas we are even shipping it over seas. Since we have over 100 year's worth of cheap natural gas ahead of us this is the equivalent of burning coal for another 50 years.
Fat chance it you think the world is going to get weaned off cheap fossil fuels. American has unlimited cheap coal and cheap, extensive natural gas deposits; the world covets cheap energy.
We can't agree that our creature comforts should consider the plight of our children financially (Social Security insolvency) and in terms of their health (Medicare insolvency), why would anyone believe we will sacrifice our standard of living based on cheap energy with a huge carbon footprint to benefit the standard of living of our progeny?
F. Swemson
Equating the power of the sun to warm the earth with the power of CO2 to do the same is silly. The greenhouse effect has been exaggerated out of all proportion in the overall calculus of our climate system. At most, the effect of increasing CO2 on our climate is statistically insignificant. Besides, warming is good, as all of you climate alarmists are going to learn in the next 25 to 50 years, as we enter what promises to be a fairly serious cooling period. BTW: The lag time between warming and increased CO2 that comes as a result is more like 800 years. Seems counterintuitive, I know, but that's the way it is. Warming causes CO2 levels to increase because it reduces the solubility of CO2 in our oceans. Most plant life evolved in an atmosphere of 1500ppm or more of CO2. Your reference to "excess" CO2 is also meaningless.
Furthermore, as a geologist, you should know that the term "fossil fuels" is a misnomer. Oil is abiotic. The sheer quantity of it that exists makes it obvious that it isn't just a product of decaying biological matter. Likewise, the term "carbon footprint" is totally meaningless, unless you're a coal miner with coal dust on the soles of your work boots walking on a white rug.
The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.
H L Mencken
fs
Unaeza Alvi
Perceptions: We needs to address people perceptions about climate change and the potential of their small actions. Values: We need to connect people to core values /religious values.
Practices: We need to share good practices, celebrate good practices and condemn bad practices.
Social Media: We need to exploit the potential of social media "Mobile technology" has great potentials.