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 3 2012: Here's a statement of core principles from The International Climate Science Coalition.

    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
    • Oct 6 2012: You're wasting your time here F. Swemson. This is not some tabloid news site. TEDsters are smart enough to spot a paid fossil fuel troll.
      • Oct 7 2012: Hopefully TEDsters are also smart enough to spot the logical fallacy in what you just said. To dismiss our arguments because you think we are "a paid fossil fuel troll" is a logical fallacy referred to as "motive intent". It is also "guilt by association" and "ad hominem", since you are implying that we are dishonest.

        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
        • Oct 7 2012: Wow Tom Harris himself! What an honour.

          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?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.