Welcome to NEFF

Sign up for a new account today, or log on with your old account!

Give us a try!

Welcome back to the new NEFF. Take a break from Twitter and Facebook. You don't go to Dicks for your fly fishing gear, you go to your local fly fishing store. Enjoy!

Global Warming column

CR

New member
Chill out over global warming
By David Harsanyi
Denver Post Staff Columnist

You'll often hear the left lecture about the importance of dissent in a free society.

Why not give it a whirl?

Start by challenging global warming hysteria next time you're at a LoDo cocktail party and see what happens.

Admittedly, I possess virtually no expertise in science. That puts me in exactly the same position as most dogmatic environmentalists who want to craft public policy around global warming fears.

The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.

Gray is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.

"They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."

Gray directs me to a 1975 Newsweek article that whipped up a different fear: a coming ice age.

"Climatologists," reads the piece, "are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change. ... The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."

Thank God they did nothing. Imagine how warm we'd be?

Another highly respected climatologist, Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.

Pielke contends there isn't enough intellectual diversity in the debate. He claims a few vocal individuals are quoted "over and over" again, when in fact there are a variety of opinions.

I ask him: How do we fix the public perception that the debate is over?

"Quite frankly," says Pielke, who runs the Climate Science Weblog (climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu), "I think the media is in the ideal position to do that. If the media honestly presented the views out there, which they rarely do, things would change. There aren't just two sides here. There are a range of opinions on this issue. A lot of scientists out there that are very capable of presenting other views are not being heard."

Al Gore (not a scientist) has definitely been heard- and heard and heard. His documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," is so important, in fact, that Gore crisscrosses the nation destroying the atmosphere just to tell us about it.

"Let's just say a crowd of baby boomers and yuppies have hijacked this thing," Gray says. "It's about politics. Very few people have experience with some real data. I think that there is so much general lack of knowledge on this. I've been at this over 50 years down in the trenches working, thinking and teaching."

Gray acknowledges that we've had some warming the past 30 years. "I don't question that," he explains. "And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."

Both Gray and Pielke say there are many younger scientists who voice their concerns about global warming hysteria privately but would never jeopardize their careers by speaking up.

"Plenty of young people tell me they don't believe it," he says. "But they won't touch this at all. If they're smart, they'll say: 'I'm going to let this run its course.' It's a sort of mild McCarthyism. I just believe in telling the truth the best I can. I was brought up that way."

So next time you're with some progressive friends, dissent. Tell 'em you're not sold on this global warming stuff.

Back away slowly. You'll probably be called a fascist.

Don't worry, you're not. A true fascist is anyone who wants to take away my air conditioning or force me to ride a bike.
 
Reply

So let me just ask a very basic question. How do you know who is telling the truth about this issue. I would even submit that some HONEST debate is appropriate but I have heard equal amount of misinformation on both sides. Should we trust big business or the government or perhaps environmentalists to be honest. Fact is they all have agendas and normally within each group there are a FEW honest people. URL is a good case in point. Not related to Global Warming but kind of drives home the point of trust or the lack there of we should have on any issue. Of course you could ask the question is the writer of this article being truthful with all of the facts as well.

T.E.A.C.H. -- A History of Pollution
 
OK so these two guys believe that global warming caused by humans is a "hoax". I see only opinion here and no facts (Like many statements supporting or refuting global warming caused by human activity).

Yes like a good deal of sceince there is contraversy here. Consider however what happens if those which want intervention to mitigate global warming are wrong and consider if those who want to ignore it are wrong. Which "cost" of being wrong is higher?

What is really sad, like many important issues in our country, global warming has become highly politicized. Republican vs. Democrat... Consiervative vs. Liberal. It wasn't always so with George Bush Senior and Bill Cinton taking active roles in negotiating and supporting the Kyoto Treaty.
 
Fred,

You talk about the "cost" if either side is wrong. Do you really want everyone on the planet to spend billions and change their lifestyles fixing a problem that may not even exist? That's ridiculous - there needs to be irrefutable PROOF - not speculation - that humans are contributing to global warming before actions are taken to "correct" it.

Me, I'd rather those billions spent feeding the hungry and actually helping people, until it is proven that humans are having an impact AND that we can do something to fix it.
 
Reply

Just curious but what is the cost of repairing this problem (if it exists) 5, 10, 15, or 20 years from now. How do you know what the cost is today? You are basing your response on what you are being told. I would ask the same question of an environmentalist. How does an environmentatlist know that global warming can be reversed at all.

President Bush decided not to sign Kyoto because of the impact to our economy but no details were ever provided on what that cost would be and if the problem does not exist than why is he stating that it exists in the first place. The original post states that many young people come up and tell me they dont believe in this global warming issue. So what does this have to do with the price of Tea in China. Nothing. The people that believe we are contributing to global warming have an agenda and the people that say it has nothing to do with us have an agenda. Beyond this nothing of use can be stated on the issue and no one is going to change the mind of the other side until we all get to heaven and it is revealed to us along with the mystery of what that monster trout was eating when you spent 4 hours throwing everything but the kitchen sink at him only to watch him eat the invisible fly time and time again.
 
CR... something to ponder. I'm all for posting studies from both sides so if you have one to contribute... please do.


The High Costs of Inaction - Global Warming - Sierra Club

In a new study the world’s preeminent atmospheric scientists conclude that global warming has begun (IPCC, 1995a,b). They project that it will bring expanding ranges of tropical diseases and other devastating health problems, perilous sea level rise, more intense tropical storms, extinction of countless plant and animal species, and failure of crops in the world’s most vulnerable regions.

Some analysts have attempted to assess the dollar costs of these consequences of global warming. They estimate that global warming could cost as little as $59 billion or as much as $438 billion annually ($1993).1 This report critiques cost-benefit analysis, the key methodology used in these studies. It then highlights those global warming effects that cannot be given dollar values. This report concludes that letting global warming happen will cost far more than cost-benefit analyses predict. Certainly global warming will cost far more than taking energy efficiency steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions today. Numerous studies have already demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of improving energy efficiency, so we do not attempt to replicate those analyses here (See, for example, Alliance to Save Energy, et al., 1991; Geller, et al., 1992; Lovins and Lovins, 1991).
 
Back
Top