TED Conversations

Arjuna Nagendran

Doctor,

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?

+4
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Oct 2 2012: Nobody has ever offered a more succinct indictment of the global warming hoax than H. L. Mencken, who said: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

    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
    • Oct 2 2012: lolwut.
      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.
      • Oct 2 2012: How about coming up with even one scientific fact that supports your widely discredited pseudo-scienctific theory rather than just attacking the messenger?

        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
        • Oct 2 2012: Lol again. Sure, why not. I'll feed the troll!

          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.
        • Oct 3 2012: And your link to your graph is wrong, by the way. Just use the data available at NASA and you'll see a well chose global land-ocean temperature index versus solar irradiance do NOT correlate like you show. Irradiance is a stable wave with 11-year cycles (a little bit slower this year) oscillating between 1365 and 1367 W/m^2, while the mean Land-Ocean temp index has gone from .0 to .55 in the same period (when it was at -.3 in 1880)

          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.
    • Oct 5 2012: Merchants of Doubt authors point out that they same people who cut their teeth arguing that nicotine was not addictive used the pretext that the science was "ambiguous" i.e. they tried to introduce doubt; this is the same tactic used by the global warming deniers.

      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?
      • Oct 5 2012: Comparing scientists like Dr. Richard Lindzen at MIT, and Dr. Willie Soon @ Harvard to people who argued that tobacco was not harmful, is beyond absurd. There is ZERO scientific evidence supporting the ridiculous AGW theory. Nobody is denying that the earth has warmed somewhat since the end of the Little Ice Age. What we deny is the idea that this warming was caused by our increased use of hydrocarbon based fuels during the industrial revolution. If you really believe it to be true, then come up with some scientific proof. A real scientist doesn't prove his theories by insulting & bad mouthing other scientists who disagree with him.

        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

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.