TED Conversations

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

Global Warming: Make me an offer...

The theory of man made global climate change says that human co2 emissions, in fact, are a massive and immediate threat to the earth. This theory has been taken as token fact even though temperature models that formed the theory are now almost two decades into inaccurate projections of temperatures thought to have rapidly risen by now, but have actually been stable since the year 2000.

Pretend I'm a high ranking government official and answer this for me as though you were a policy analyst:

Is it logical for governments to enact policy that is detrimental to fossil fuel industries, global economies, and the families of those workers who are literally put out of work by the government based off of the increasingly unfounded and hotly scientifically contested theory of man-made global climate change?

Keep in mind these factors:
Renewable energy does not have a cheap and efficient answer currently.

As we've seen with the Stimulus Package- government subsidized "green" start-ups end in bankruptcy.

The country is in the midst of an economic crisis.

Fossil fuel is the most cost effective and profitable energy source.

Fear is a powerful tool for politicians and businessmen alike.

Have fun kiddos!

+1
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Sep 6 2013: " [temperatures] have actually been stable since the year 2000."

    Not actually true. The hottest year on record is 2010 which is tied with 2005.

    "increasingly unfounded and hotly scientifically contested theory of man-made global climate change"

    The truth is the evidence and scientific consensus around climate change has never been stronger. I encourage everyone to visit the page:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

    Particularly noteworthy is the section titled "surveys of scientists and scientific literature. Highlights include:

    -a survey of 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society, of which only 5 % believed that human activity had little or no effect and only 13 % believed there was relatively little danger.

    -a survey of 2058 climate scientists from 34 countries of which only 1.35% said they did not agree at all to the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?"

    -a 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers, finding 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming and reporting: Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

    The scientific consensus around climate change is certainly stronger than the consensus among economists around that causes of current recession and the appropriate course of action.

    People who claim that the human caused climate change is not real are no less at odds with scientific evidence and the scientific community than those who refute evolution or claim vaccination should be avoided for health reasons.

    Don't put your head in the sand for fear of losing your job.
    • Sep 6 2013: Unfortunately, the climatologists all have a vested interest for there to be global warming.

      Ever since global warming became a thing, their budgets skyrocketed. If global warming was suddenly proven defunct as a theory, all of that goes away (climatology becomes boring again), and a whole lot of climatologists find themselves out of a job. These climatologists are smart people. I'm sure they're perfectly aware of this.
      Not to mention that speaking out against global warming in certain academic circles can easily get you fired. These things are a lot less liberal than they'd like the public to believe.

      Add to that the media picking up on any sensationalist story that comes its way (and probably exaggerating it even further while they're at it), politicians trying to get elected on a "green" agenda, and various green industries trying to make a buck (they've got as much of a will to make money as the fossil fuel industry after all), and you end up with a whole lot of people interested in making global warming a thing.

      Just because its popular doesn't make it true.
      Personally, I've been led to believe that the historic correlation between temperature and CO2 is a result of warming oceans spitting CO2 dissolved in the water into the atmosphere.
      This explains the fact that CO2 levels have been steadily rising for the past 150 years, but temperature has been a lot less monotonous--rising temperature leads to CO2 rise (over however long it takes the ocean to warm up, a matter of years), but CO2 rise doesn't lead to rising temperature.
      • thumb
        Sep 7 2013: The idea of global warming has been around for decades. Most of that time the governments of the world did absolutely nothing. Only after the evidence was absolutely enormous did governments form the international panel on climate change. They get funding.

        As far as the scientific communities of individual countries I highly doubt that their funding has "skyrocketed". I know that in Canada funding for climate science has decreased. This is because climate change is a huge problem for the government. The fossil fuel industry is one of the most powerful forces on the planet and provides a lot of funding to the political parties. On the other hand, many of the voters want the problem addressed. Its easier to cut funding to climate science than it is to deal with climate change.

        Also, climatologists and meteorologists do not study climate change. They study climate and weather. We study climate and weather because it is very important to understand. It is crucial for agriculture, fisheries, infrastructure planning, insurance, shipping, air travel and arctic resource extraction. That information is very valuable so I highly doubt that these experts would be out of work if people quit believing in human caused climate change.

        If anything, scientists would get more funding if they denied it. There are mountains of money to be made by denial human caused climate change. The most powerful corporations in the world have literally trillions of dollars in assets and infrastructure at stake over this issue. They are fighting back with one of the largest PR campaigns in human history.

        "Just because its popular doesn't make it true."

        I'm not saying that it is popular. I am saying that there is general scientific consensus. The popularity of the idea that humans are causing climate change is decreasing, even though the scientific consensus is increasing. When the vast majority of scientists in their specialty agree, its probably true.
    • thumb
      Sep 7 2013: Scott,
      A lot of the information you have quoted has been found suspected... proponents of global climate change has used numbers that show increases in summer temperatures in... for example the US, citing desert conditions in the southwest with higher temperatures and little rain all true. What they don't elaborate is that the temperatures in Russia have been 20 degrees below normal at the same time. There may be little question that the climate in general is more active, what disturbs me is that the venom expressed by those who say it's all due to CO2 generated by man to those who question their findings. True science only bases findings on provable facts and never refers to others as "deniers" and other derogatory terms.
      • thumb
        Sep 7 2013: Climatologists do not believe in global warming because of a hot summer in the american southwest. They believe global warming because of a vast network of weather stations around the globe that have been keeping records for as long as 150 years in some cases. Modern weather stations are link via computer and combined with ocean data as well as a network of satellites.

        The reason the word "denier" gets thrown around is because there are people literally paid to deny and subvert public faith in science when it comes to climate. The most powerful companies in the world are being asked to reduce their economic activity and they are fighting back. The myths that they propagate are in this very thread.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.