TED Conversations

Alan Henderson

TEDCRED 10+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Certain actions of certain scientists has for some undermined the arguments of global warming. Does it really matter?

Some people have used the actions of a few well meaning but misguided individuals to dismiss the entire notion of global warming. Given the multitude of benefits that come with a move toward renewable energy systems I am forced to wonder if it even matters. Even if motivated solely by greed, I would hope for better, the bottom line is that green initiatives are frequently beneficial. I'm not aware of a discussion that focuses on this so directly.

I wonder what the crowd would say about how actions motivated by fear of global warming has affected their lives. Good or bad, I want to know. On an individual level it might not seem so obvious but in the greater sum we might find that global warming was just one of many things we could positively affect with these strategies.

Financial Security, Political Security, Health Security, Food Security, Water Security....I invite the crowd to add to this list and explain it in their own way.

0
Share:
progress indicator
  • thumb

    Mike Colera 10+

    • 0
    Feb 7 2013: The premise is that there is climate change and man can control it.... Historical records tell us that the global climate has been all over the place. The planet has been a giant snowball to a hot house sauna. Cosmologists tell us that there are forces in the universe that are beyond imagination. In our own solar system there are solar flares, solar winds, asteroid movements, gravitational forces, et el. that all could have influence on our global climate. So, is there global climate change? I believe that global climate is dynamic, sometimes over a millennium, sometimes over a decade. Do I believe that some men think that they can do something to keep the climate it's current state?
    Not convinced.
    Will we run out of fossil fuels. At the current rate of consumption? Yes, in a few hundred years is some of the best guesses. Should man be looking for new energy sources, absolutely.
    BUT:
    Let's look at these "renewable energy plans" more holes then swiss cheese.
    Let's use food or land capable of growing food to grow energy sources. That doesn't do much to help world starvation issues.
    Let's use a lot of windmills to collect wind energy, take the energy out of wind and what happens down stream to regional weather effects, we really haven't studied that.
    Cover Arizona in solar panels, no sweat on those cloudy days. Call them unscheduled weekends. Wait a minute, electrical transmission is a finite. No lights past Denver.
    Here is my view.
    We need to set a goal that in some number of decades? to find a very reliable source of energy that can support the world of the future.
    Where certain" scientists" have undermined the arguments for global warming is that we shut down fossil energy sources immediately to prevent the possibility of an increase in global climate. So, the world has to return to a life style pre industrial revolution to save us? I'll take my chances that the little lake in upstate New York I visit becomes the new Miami beach.
  • thumb

    peter lindsay 30+

    • +1
    Feb 7 2013: It's all a good example of what happens when a scientific debate is highjacked by the media and famous people. Contrast this with what happened when the thinning of the o-zone was discovered and scientifically attributed to the use of CFCs. Within 20 years CFCs were banned and the o-zone had started to recover.
  • thumb

    Gail . 50+

    • 0
    Feb 6 2013: If you rest your sense of security on things that you mention, then you headed for depression. Until more people understand that these issues are caused by money and cured by withdrawing money, it will, as George said, "just get worse".

  • george lockwood 20+

    • +1
    Feb 6 2013: The Masters of the Universe don't intend to change. It will just get worse.
  • thumb

    Krisztián Pintér 200+

    • 0
    TED Translator
    Feb 5 2013: absolutely no benefit comes from renewables other then zero carbon emission. if global warming is either false or not an urgent problem, we have no reason to move away from fossils. actually, we have a bunch of good reasons to stick with it. so it is a question of key importance. and the disinformation surrounding the question is scary.

    • Brian Ruckman

      • +1
      Feb 7 2013: Besides that fossil fuels are finite.. world conventional oil production has flat lined. I can think of many other reasons why staying with fossil fuels is a bad idea.
      • thumb

        Krisztián Pintér 200+

        • 0
        TED Translator
        Feb 7 2013: finite and runs out in 500 years. personally, i don't care. people 400 years in the future should start caring.

        • Brian Ruckman

          • 0
          Feb 7 2013: Unfortunately we have burnt through half of the low hangning fruit. Now oil companies are resorting to tar sands and other extreme oil sources. Say goodbye to cheap oil. And I think you would agree cheap oil is the most important commodity our modern economy has.
      • thumb

        Krisztián Pintér 200+

        • 0
        TED Translator
        Feb 7 2013: poor us. now we need to turn to coal and gas, which we have mother lodes all around.

        • Brian Ruckman

          • 0
          Feb 7 2013: You are optimistic about our fossil fuel future. If you say renewables don't have benefits other than zero carbon emissions than I assume you want to rely on fossil fuels. How do you feel about fossil fuel exploitation from environmentally pristine regions such as Ecuador's rainforest, the Alaskan north slope? What about mountain top removal? Certainly a fossil fuel dependent society would have to develop every region that has economical reserves. Do you care about the legacy we leave behind?
      • thumb

        Krisztián Pintér 200+

        • 0
        TED Translator
        Feb 7 2013: you assume wrong. i'm in favor of nuclear, especially 4th gen. but i acknowledge that if carbon emission turns out to be harmless, and it can be proven reliably, we should stick to fossils for a few decades. the resources necessary for any transformation are better spent on the poor parts of the world.

        and the same is true for the other things you mention. i care about people, present and future. we have billions starving.

    • Random Chance 30+

      • 0
      Feb 7 2013: How can you say that?
      "we have no reason to move away from fossils."
      The pollution from fossil fuels and their by-products, which number into the thousands and thousands of ways of polluting the environment, the food chain, water tables and so on, is to me an absurd comment.
      I do appreciate that you are at least honest that you care not one whit about others, here and now, or in the future. You could have picked a different planet to come to you know.

      Do you simply destroy your own living environment? If not, why not? I like water. I like to drink water. I find it to be the most delicious drink there is. So please, allow me clean water and you drink the filthy stuff. OK?
Showing all 13 comments