Do you agree with this editorial?

Question

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010763&mod=RSS_Opinion_Journal&ojrss=frontpage

Can you find something in this you agree with?
Can you find something you disagree with?
Did you learn anything new?

Answer 1

It is a very good presentation of the viewpoints held by many of us scientists regarding the global warming hysteria. I would have employed different examples in support of the position, simply because my background (and thus my expertise and knowledge base) is different.

The important points to me are : 1) global warming is not inevitably bad and in fact appears to have many positive aspects; 2) Diversion of money to the global warming problem takes money away from other environmental issues that are better defined and would benefit more from immediate action.

Answer 2

True - Species may be more resilient than predicted. Habitat destruction is also a serious problem.

False - The implication that global warming will not cause major ecological damage. Coral reefs and sensitive species are already feeling the impact. Food chains are a particular problem.

True - Mt. Kilimanjaro is likely more affected by other things than global warming.

But - It's an exception. Many glaciers are disappearing because of global warming.

Bottom line. Some people have exaggerated some things about global warming. (Mt. Kilimanjaro was more a mistake than an exaggeration. As the article indicates, the analysis of exactly what's going on happened well after Gore's movie was made.)

But that doesn't mean that global warming is a relatively minor thing that can be easily dealt with. However many minor examples can be dredged up, this is still a problem of this level of seriousness:

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL052735320070407
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07.pdf

And, reducing it (not eliminating it) by reducing (not eliminating) use of fossil fuels will still clearly be less costly than dealing with it full force.

The exact balance between prevention and coping IS a worthy topic of debate. Those who say we'll all die and those who say we can simply deal with the effects are equally ignorant.

The biggest disagreement I have with the article is this completely ridiculous statement:

"the evidence that global warming will have serious effects on life is thin". Very few scientific "skeptics" would agree with that.

I agree with the article that we shouldn't think global warming is the only problem we have and neglect everything else. But it's a big one, arguably the biggest. No, we shouldn't focus on it exclusively. But it warrants a very major effort.

Having read extensively on the subject, this really wasn't anything new.

Good question. Quality source. Well stated to provoke serious discussion. Starred.

Answer 3

I agree to a certain extent but have reservations in others. He talks of species which did not become extinct because of previous changes in weather on earth but recently there have been traces of unknown animals from those periods of time so perhaps there were thousands of plants and animals which did become extinct that we still know nothing about.
He is right that we should not panic but neither should we be unconcerned as so many are who simply dismiss global warming and go about their lives as if nothing is happening yet I wonder if the panic is the necessary antidote to apathy in many cases to arrive at a path of future action that we can all live with.

Answer 4

What I agree and what I have been saying all along is that despite the claim of global warming supporters, the evidence is not overwhelming, but they are exaggerating the effects because reducing co2 emissions serves their political agenda.

Answer 5

I agree with the premise:

"Global warming doesn't matter except to the extent that it will affect life."

I disagree with the conclusion:

"the evidence that global warming will have serious effects on life is thin. Most evidence suggests the contrary."

Quite the opposite.

Answer 6

I agree. I am for conservation and trying to preserve the environment, but people like Al Gore cause people to over react.

Answer 7

The editorial is very good and the logical conclusions are just fine. But what are the realities being faced by the common man? It is either floods or draught, either too hot or too cold. About 20 years ago, these changes were not noticeable and people lived with less discomforts. But now it is unbearable.
Let us not pretend that whatever is happening with regard to climatic changes is not man made but is natural. Nature has its own limitations and is watching us closely. One fine day....
I will not be there to answer your question due to climatic change, may be. However, U-SEE, I have done my own little bit and may be the community will be interested in adopting it because it is FREE:

U-SEE - We must save the world from over-exploitation of natural resources
Knowingly or unknowingly we are all partners in misusing of costly electricity for our lighting purpose during day time when the solar light is available just outside our windows. Why can't bring home the sunshine?
Yes. This has been successfully adopted by a number of people in Bangalore, India. This innovative but simple method of bringing home the sunshine was suggested to the World Bank as a Grassroots Initiative for Preservation of Natural Resourcs during IDM-2007 competition - Project U-SEE (Unlimited Savings of Electrical Energy). U-SEE does not involve any nano technology nor does it requires billions of dollars for implementation. Moreover, U-SEE you get free lighting for life. No charges.
The World Bank honored this initiative and has created a permanent blog on the World Bank URL at http://dmblog.worldbank.org/mirrors-can-bring-light-rural-homes.
How is it implemented? U need a house hold mirror of 12"X18" and a pillow. Identify where u can get maximum sunshine just outside the windows with clear glass or on the balcony, keep the pillow on a stool or chair and place the mirror on the pillow, go on nudging the mirror till the solar light is deflected from the mirror, through the window and on to the white ceiling inside your home. U will be surprised to find the light spreading from the ceiling - it can be 40 to 60 watts (see the picture above - notice tube light and table lamp in the corner are not burning but there is enough light). If u can keep a bigger mirror, u will get more bright light. U can control the light just by covering a portion of the mirror.
Earth moves on its latitude. When u find that the deflected solar light is moving elsewhere, just go to the mirror, nudge a little and u can get back your light as before. THIS IS THE BASIC IDEA and once u have done it, u be the Innovator of your light requirements for your home and U-SEE PROVIDES YOU FREE LIGHTING FOR LIFE. Many homes/huts in rural areas in developing countries do not have proper lighting and people are living in dark, damp and dingy environs but urbanites living in concrete jungles in cities with tinted glasses are misusing electricity for their lighting purpose even during day time.
U-SEE the Benefits: ONE incandescent bulb/tubelight burning for 6 hours during day time consumes 7 units of electricity in a month. If half the world can adopt U-SEE and switch off one bulb for 6 hours during day time, how much of electricity can be saved? Your guess is as good as mine + saves cost of fossil fuels, coal, water+saves cost incurred for machineries and equipments+saves overhead charges+saves transmission loss charges+saves the world from global warming (burning bulbs/CO2 etc) with n'th value+ U GET FREE LIGHTING FOR LIFE with n'th value. The savings that accrue can off set the load on our productive requirements like A/c, refrigerators, mixies, fans etc.
Solar light will be available at least for about 200 days in a year and it is infinite and why should we let it go waste? We are not harnessing this infinite energy. U-SEE is ssoo simple.
First adopt this method, innovate solutions if u face small problems. U be the winner. U-SEE It is a win win situation for all of us. Need clarifications, mail: [e-mail] U-SEE - The author's ambition is to spread this friendly initiative to one and all. No charges!!
Vasanthkumar Mysoremath, Bangalore, India

Answer 8

You cant disagree with any of it and remain intellectually honest.

Answer 9

Its jsut more of the "skeptics" propaganda. Science is not about their crackpot "opinions."--its about facts.