Republican ready to call a partial truce in the Global Warming debate. What do you think? (see details)?

Question

I've listened to both sides of the argument, and here are the conclusions I've drawn from the evidence... Please let me know what you think about it:

1. It is definitely time to concede the argument that warming IS happening. The evidence is just too overwhelming.

2. I don't think it has been definitively proven that human activity is the primary cause of recent warming. I believe we simply haven't been keeping climate records long enough, and/or we don't have a sophisticated enough understanding of global climate systems to draw that conclusion with any certainty. More study is needed.

3. There have been other periods of history in which we had rapid and even MORE extensive warming than we're having today, and I haven't seen any studies that show a correlation between those events and any significant extinctions or species declines.

4. We are coming out of the most recent ice-age, so is it not possible that the warming trend is an entirely natural phenomenon that...

(4, cont'd)... this warming trend was going to happen anyway, despite anything we did to the environment?

5. Even if it can be shown that it is happening and we are causing it, is the science developed enough to REALLY support the doom-and-gloom predictions of the alarmists? I mean, SO WHAT? We adjust and adapt to the changes with new scientific advancements...

6. Has anyone performed a cost-benefit analysis comparing the costs it would take to stop contributing to the problem now, versus the costs of adjusting and adapting to a warmer climate later? I'm sure both cost figures would be fairly staggering, but which one is worse?

7. And finally - Even IF we're not sure that humans are causing it, and even if we're not sure that there will be widespread catastrophy if we don't change our ways, doesn't it make sense to go ahead and start NOW working on ways to eliminate fossil fuel consumption altogether? Just in case?

(7, cont'd). Think of the economic impact of engaging the entire world in the largest scientific research project ever conceived... finding a replacement for fossil fuels. It would unite the world in a common purpose, and would be the catalyst for unprecedented economic investment in research. Good for everyone, no?

Answer 1

My take is that the carbon dioxide concentration in the air is definitely way higher than any time in the past 400,000 years, and this is accurately known from air samples trapped in ice cores in glaciers and modern air samples.

This added CO2 is definitely our fault. It should cause warming, but nobody knows how much.

Average temperature of the world is practically impossible to measure, so I discount all claims of the climate actually being measured as warmer. Record highs in cities do not cut it.

Even if the climate warms enough to cause much of the ice to melt, it will NOT kill people. It will slowly flood some coastal areas, causing massive ECONOMIC damage, but NOT death and destruction.

Minor reductions in our use of oil and coal will not help. We would need to IMMEDIATELY and TOTALLY stop burning ALL coal, oil and gas to have a real impact, and even then, the CO2 levels NOW are already high enough to cause some warming.

Total cessation of all fossil fuel use would totally destroy the world economy, with massive poverty and death by starvation, lack of medical care and housing being the inevitable result, and there would STILL be some warming from the CO2 already in the air.

So we better get busy improving our technology, because all other alternatives are bad.

Now a plug for my favorite thing, space flight. All space flight people are also alternative evergy people, because there is no oil in space. Solar cell and fuel cell power have been developed extensively by the space program. It is even posible to put large sunshades in space to reduce solar heating of the Earth. That idea may sound crazy, but there is no reason it would not work. We really need to think out of the box because forcing everyone to live like the Amish is the only other choice (and not a bad one either, IMO, but others may disagree, which would result in war if we tried to enforce it).

Answer 2

Their is no doubt that global warming is happening, however to say that humans are responsible kind of reminds me when I was in 2nd grade and my Science book in a public school taught me that when I was thirty the US would be over populated I wrote a letter to the president (Carter at the time) I told him that I would not have any children if it would help the country! I remember as a child being afraid to grow up. What does that have to do with Global Warming. I know that this planet had warmer temperatures before in its lifetime Why can this not be a cycle of the earth?

Answer 3

Your arguments make good sense but didn't factor in big business. They will do ANYTHING to keep the bucks rolling in. Case in point... the coal-rich states like Virginia that keep insisting that coal can be a clean energy. A big part of their economy would disappear if we stopped burning that filthy stuff. We may not have triggered this warming trend but we are certainly contributing to it. Politicians, being just front men for big business, won't take definitive action until rich, white Americans start dying in significant numbers.

Answer 4

Only the stupid ones are still saying global warming is a hoax because we have satellite pictures of the ice caps and glaciers melting from year to year.

The real question is, to what extent is human activity responsible for global warming?

Answer 5

I've heard it said that the Mt. St. Helens eruption spewed more greenhouse gasses (and ozone depleting gasses) into the atmosphere in a single event than all anthropogenic causes through out recorded history !

Answer 6

You are correct on all counts, as I have mentioned several times myself. In addition, examination of the 'solar weather' shows an exact match with the climate changes we are seeing.

Nevertheless, we do need to wean ourselves from oil, if only on economic grounds.

Answer 7

I like how you listed both sides of the story. Personally I think that the sun is just getting hotter. If anyone wants to prove me wrong go to the sun with a thermomiter and come back...

Answer 8

You make some very compelling arguments.