This conversation is closed.

Other side of climate change debate?

I don't want to start an argument over which side is right. I am trying to educate myself with views from both sides of the issue before I form my opinion. I haven't formed one yet on man made climate change, but I can't find any TED talks that are from the camp that say man made CO2 is not the cause of climate change... Does anyone know of one I could watch?
Kind Regards,

  • Feb 27 2013: Those fossil fuels come from dead animal and plants of long ago-as you might already know. We burn those fuel and deposit more CO2 into the air then nature can handle.
    Photo plankton give us most of our oxygen, not trees & plants, and we our killing off their life cycle by what we are doing to the air & oceans of the world.
    Everything is interconnected-everything.
    • Feb 28 2013: Agreed, everything is indeed connected, like a sympathetic nervous system planet wide. And what we are doing to the oceans is pretty darned ugly and shameful. I'd like to run with your observation of everything being interconnected a bit: It's almost as if all the cells of your body gained individual awareness and started being motivated by short term self interest. What a mess that would make. Makes me think that perhaps there are cosmic/consciousness related questions that need answering as well as the scientific ones if we are to see our way clear of this mess. Perhaps with the global implementation of information technology we are.... kind of like the sympathetic nervous system that keeps all the cells coordinated through the flow of information so that we reap the rewards of synergy and can operate as a single system in ITS best interest as well as our own... I don't know,it's late, my brain is slipping out of gear I think. Thanks for the reply. (and the reminder) :)
      Kind Regards,
  • thumb
    Feb 27 2013: Bjorn Lomborg has presented an alternative to the two sides of the debate in a rational and enlightening way. Worth the time to watch and scrutinize. Also worth a look at his documentary "Cool It".

    What we don't "know" in the context of our global climate is far greater than what we do know…for instance, we don't know to what extent CO2 is a factor in atmospheric warming. Furthermore the current "changes" we perceive are in terms of a very short time frame relative to geological time. Ice core data also seems to indicate a lag in the relationship between a rise in CO2 levels and actual temperature rise. This alone is further indication we know too little about what drives climate change and specifically what drives abrupt change of the kind the alarmists seem intent on scaring us with.
    • thumb
      Feb 27 2013: Daryl, I have a question. Do you think we know precisely the clinical validity of lung cancer induced by smoking? Will you call anti-smoking campaign on health ground 'alarmist'?
      • thumb
        Feb 27 2013: Pabitra, No, to answer your question but …Would you conclude lung cancer is only caused by smoking? The truth is we probably know more about what causes lung cancer than we do about what causes Climate Change, especially "abrupt" climate change.

        I'm sure you've heard of "Clouding the issue with facts"…this is where the current global conversation on Climate Change is… a relatively small amount of information is being used and abused to declare emergencies and generally incite a panic mentality in order to draw attention to this issue and/or sell someones idea or book or maintain a status quo to our peril. The biggest and more dangerous result of this approach is a confusing mess of rhetoric on both sides which render Lost any appropriate response and risks unreasonable costs in time and limited resources again, to our peril. An interesting yet little known event has occurred over the last 150 years or so….the oceans have risen 1 foot….there is no panic, no call for international resources to be spent to mitigate this event…should there be? All I'm saying is that we need a responsible conversation about this issue and a reasonable plan to deal with it in a reasonable timeframe.
        • thumb
          Feb 28 2013: I find it difficult to agree with you that there is no reason to panic if the sea level rises by 1 foot. Maldivians will also not agree I guess.
          Admitted that the science behind Climate Change or Global Warming is not easy to grasp as Climate Science is a vastly complex discipline. But Climate Change and it's possible effects have been thoroughly studied, there are tons of peer reviewed research literature on these and there is a majority consensus within the international scientific communities about it's validity.
          What I think is major impediment in popular awareness about it is lack of political will.
    • Feb 27 2013: Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I watched the video and I like his thought process. Kind of like medical triage in a disaster.
  • thumb
    Feb 28 2013: Climate change denial has a political agenda.

    Man-made cimate change has a scientific one.

    You choose.

    Here's a video, via The Real of Jeffrey T. Kiehl, who is a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research:
    • Feb 28 2013: Hey, just watched the video. That guy lives right up the way from me, well... same state anyway. He had some quality points to make. I am glad to see him take those questions head on. (I wish the news guy didn't look so smug. Its not an argument anyone should be happy about winning, kind of like "See! I told you your Grandmother was dead, and you didn't believe me....) Anyway, I had no idea there were two types of carbon, and I am happy to see that he acknowledged the problems with Al Gores hockey stick in a matter of fact way, definitely boosts his credibility with me. Thanks again for the link. :)
      • thumb
        Feb 28 2013: I too watched the interview, did you happen to look at any of the comments/debates about the interview and the topic on the page? Again Tom, I encourage you to watch the documentary "COOL IT". It exposes the current discourse and subsequent policies and proposals as ineffective and inefficient to the goals they were meant to achieve. Bjorn is not saying there is no Climate Change, he is saying the information being used and abused on both sides of the discourse are resulting in false conclusions and irresponsible policies.
  • thumb
    Feb 27 2013: It's quite popular on my countries blogs where a lot of retired people who are politically minded choose a side and spend all day hammering each other from cherry picking. I have reasoned it out that they realize it must go beyond their lifetime expectancy therefore it's a hot topic for a stance on something.

    They can't help themselves when one starts a round of link throw ups and then the war begins.

    I just state that we have never faced this before and can only face what's coming with the expectancy to be always prepared to move on the spot if one has to, cities get destroyed or suffer from severe weather events but are in reality just hubs of human concentrations, they can be set up elsewhere, we are the ones who feel the loss of these structures as world ending events. There is the meme that if we lose a city it is such a loss that the government must payout the people to compensate them for the breach of their contract for life and their lifestyles and then they run off to a country that is deemed safe and economically viable. I witnessed this with my own countries disasters.
    • Feb 27 2013: I see what you mean. I've heard a theory about how it's far more natural for people to decide what they want to believe first, then set about finding evidence to support that belief, rather than the more unnatural process of gathering data first and then formulating your belief based on rational processing of that data. Which is what I am trying to do (harder than it looks, I keep finding unfounded biases sneaking back into my thought processes ;) Thank you for sharing! What country are you from, if you don't mind me asking?
    • Feb 27 2013: I see the warring too. I don't find it too helpful, all in all, that's why I wanted to preface my question the way I did. :)
      • thumb
        Feb 28 2013: I'm from New Zealand and come to think of it we have only suffered one modern event yet we share the same type of induction zone that Japan has which triggered the the tsunami for them. We have ours just off our capital cities shores, at the moment we are experiencing drought conditions across the country.
  • Feb 27 2013: Scanning a few results of search for Climate Change does not show any links to "other side" of climate change:

    However there are claims that there is not really any scientific "other side" beside those sponsored by conservative groups:
    • Feb 27 2013: Thanks for the links. I know there is a profit motive for people on both sides to manipulate the conversation (ie I've heard globalists are behind man made climate change and oil is behind it being a natural process) That's why I try to just focus on the scientific process and only incorporate information that has survived credible peer review. I know there are some pretty thoughtful points being made on both sides. I've seen them from other sources. I just really like the TED format. Thanks for taking the time to check for me! :)
  • thumb
    Feb 27 2013: i recomemnd skimming through these blogs as a start:
    they cover multiple areas, climate issues among others

    ps: they are not really on the "other side". they are on the scientific side, as opposed to the cherrypicking political organizations.
    • Feb 27 2013: Interesting stuff here. Thanks for the reply!
  • Feb 27 2013: No idea! But imagine the reason you haven't found any is because the evidence shows humans have put more CO2 into the atmosphere then natural events could.
    • Feb 27 2013: Thanks for responding so quickly. I can certainly recognize that we produce plenty of CO2. With respect to the CO2 component of climate change, I am at the stage of vetting the claims that CO2 is not in a position to overshadow the effects of methane or water vapor in as far as how much the amounts in the atmosphere vary and the degree to which they impact the greenhouse effect. I've also heard that historical CO2 levels might not precede temperature changes as previously thought, but might actually follow temperature changes. Indicating that the increasing levels we are seeing now, is in response to temp changes which are in turn caused by something else. Again, not saying I agree, but do find the points worthy of closer examination. Thanks again, I really am enjoying the helpful nature and respectful tone of this forum! :)
    • thumb
      Feb 27 2013: There is one problem with your statement. The CO2 we have put in the air is from fossil fuels. That means it was originally in the air so we haven't put "more" CO2 into the air we have just put it in faster.
      • Feb 28 2013: Aha! Thank you for the correction. :)
  • Feb 28 2013: If you look at the Earths cycle so far that we know it will warm and it will freeze anyway. What the scientists are saying is that we are changing its cycle. It will happen sooner than the predicted cycle, with our CO2 consumpstion, But guess what like anyother female (Mother Earth) she will sort it for herself
  • Feb 28 2013: If you are going to do research you have to be prepared to work.
    By that, I mean go to the source, the scientific papers being written by reputable climate researchers publishing in peer review journals and read and understand what they are saying.
    As as starting point, I would suggest that you go to the following web site
    Don't bother to read the body of the text....go to the end of the article. There are 119 references to scientific papers on global warming. Read them first. By the end, you will probably have enough of an understanding to form your own opinion without falling prey to the conspiratorial theorists that lurk all around this topic
  • thumb
    Feb 28 2013: Here's a thought from left field. The last time atmospheric CO2 was at 800ppm almost all the worlds land masses were covered in dense rainforrest and a spike in evolution occured resulting in the animals and plants we now see around us. Sure a massive green house "summer" will cause us problems but it might actually be good for the planet. It may produce the organism that replaces us as the dominant force.
  • Feb 28 2013: Thank you Allen, I will watch the video and I appreciate the input, and I certainly wish I could choose, and perhaps when I come to the end of my little investigation I will see it as you do. For now, however, I must reserve judgement as I think a case could be made that people in both camps have all kinds of agenda's. which is one reason why I'm finding it so difficult to get to the bottom of all this. For example, (don't mean to pick on him, but just as an example) Al Gore invests in companies that profit from green policies, and he lobbies for them. I don't necessarily think that should exclude his arguments from the dialogue (and certainly don't think he should refrain from those activities), but I think it means his statements should be subject to thorough review. I think the same should be said for what the oil companies argue.
    I sure hope your right (well actually, I don't in that it sure would be a load off if we weren't causing this ;) I see science as the unbiased search for truth as well, and onward down the rabbit hole I go!
    • thumb
      Feb 28 2013: Hi Tom, I agree that it is extremely difficult to get at anything that passes as the truth when it comes to climate change - or any other subject ripe for the same kind of denial, like big pharma vs natural remedies as another example.

      Something that has helped me, and might help others too, is looking at the psychology behind denial - and why otherwise bright people get sucked into believing something, even in the teeth of opposing evidence.

      New Scientist magazine ran an article on just that:

      An interesting profile of a denier by Martin McKee, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine:

      1. Allege that there's a conspiracy. Claim that scientific consensus has arisen through collusion rather than the accumulation of evidence.
      2. Use fake experts to support your story. "Denial always starts with a cadre of pseudo-experts with some credentials that create a facade of credibility," says Seth Kalichman of the University of Connecticut.
      3. Cherry-pick the evidence: trumpet whatever appears to support your case and ignore or rubbish the rest. Carry on trotting out supportive evidence even after it has been discredited.
      4. Create impossible standards for your opponents. Claim that the existing evidence is not good enough and demand more. If your opponent comes up with evidence you have demanded, move the goalposts.
      5. Use logical fallacies. Hitler opposed smoking, so anti-smoking measures are Nazi. Deliberately misrepresent the scientific consensus and then knock down your straw man.
      6. Manufacture doubt. Falsely portray scientists as so divided that basing policy on their advice would be premature. Insist "both sides" must be heard and cry censorship when "dissenting" arguments or experts are rejected.