If America's (and the world's) top CEOs think global warming is a serious problem, could it be a hoax?

Question

These guys don't get their science from Al Gore, they get it from the best scientists in the world. In many cases their position on global warming seem to be contrary to their financial interest. The reason it's not is that they know the threat of a global economic depression from global warming is real. That would be _really_ bad for business.

Sure, they're not scientists. But they're also not liberals or dumb. Or part of a "conspiracy".

"The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now."

James Rogers, CEO of Charlotte-based Duke Energy.

"I believe there is now more than enough evidence of climate change to warrant an immediate and comprehensive - but considered - response. Anyone who disagrees is, in my view, still in denial."

Ford Motor Company CEO William Clay Ford, Jr.

and many more

http://www.us-cap.org/media/bios.asp

Or would you rather believe an ex-tobacco lobbyist and a science fiction writer?

A no brainer for me.

Thanks to Jello for inspiring this question.

GABY - It's a pleasure to deal with someone who deserves the honorable term of skeptic.

The quality of the temperature data has been investigated thoroughly. The reference below should provide detail. As an engineer you understand that repeated measurements and averaging can improve the precision of a measurement. For the global data, that process is substantial. Scientists believe the 5 year global averages (the important things) are good to a tenth of a degree or so.

Folland, C.K., et al (2001). "Global temperature change and its uncertainties since 1861". Geophysical Research Letters 28: 2621-2624

some results discussed concisely at:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record_png

Man has created substantial warming by making greenhouse gases. How man's seemingly puny efforts can do that is explained here:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11638

So we can also reduce this.

3DM - Of course all these guys are part of the problem too. My point is that saying global warming is a hoax is simply absurd. Or that it's just a natural cycle.

The fact that these guys are actually asking for strong government action is surprising, and indicates just how much we need to take this seriously.

Answer 1

In 2000 at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland the CEO's and presidents of the world's 1000 leading organizations declared climate change to be "the most critical problem facing humanity".

These are multi-national organizations, many of which have their own in house scientific advisers. Failing that they engage the services of outside organisations to conduct scientific research on their behalf.

These people are the leaders of the world's largest and most successful businesses, they don't make decisions or statements lightly, especially not ones that affect the future of thier own organisations.

Answer 2

Bob, there are few well educated that will argue that Global Warming isn't happening and it may be a real problem. The argument is whether or not mankind can change it. I am not yet convinced we can. I am doing everything I can (Little Car, CFE's, Considering Solar lease), because I am very conservative, and feel we need to get off foreign oil anyway. I have nothing to lose and save money anyway, but still not convinced man has the power to make any significant change in the natural climate change cycles.

My belief is based on technology. I am an engineer. I have performed a lot of research and testing in my career. I question the scientists ability to measure with very high accuracy the temperature at stations all over the world today, as well as temperature from the analysis of 20,000 year old ice. After all, we are talking about less than 1 degree C every 100 years average.

I am willing to do what I can, but still have a lot of questions.

Answer 3

Money talks. BS walks.

Ford almost single handedly created the SUV market with the release of the first Explorer. But that was not big enough, they had to release the Expedition, and then the behemoth Excursion. If there were a market for an even larger SUV, they would have built it (Ford Excessive?) How much lobbying was done to make sure that Ford's and everyone else's SUVs were exempt from the luxury tax, the gas guzzler tax, the stricter passenger car emissions and mileage standards?

If this were truly something that required an "immediate and comprehensive" response, it would be something along the lines of American factories switching to wartime production during WWII. Ford would immediately drop off all the vehicles that were not TRULY "utility" vehicles from it's offerings. Those who need a truck for professional/trade purposes could qualify for commercial sales and obtain it thusly. Mustangs? B'bye.

I suppose Ford added the qualifier, "but considered", to give them an out: "We considered making all theses changes and yeeeeaaaaaaaahhhhhh...NO."

Do you really think that the Big Three are that much more guiltless than the tobacco industry? I think all those exploding Pintos may have triggered the current warming trend that started in the mid to late 70s...

Answer 4

Interestingly many CEOs also happened to start their careers as scientists and engineers (especially tech companies), meaning they understand a little more science than your average business man (or person).

Answer 5

why should their OPINION carry any more weight than my opinion?

just because they kow-tow to you warm mongers?