Finally Feeling the Heat (Gregg Easterbrook, former global warming skeptic, converts)

New York Times ^ | May 25, 2006 | Gregg Easterbrook

[cogitator]

TODAY "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's movie about the greenhouse effect, opens in New York and California. Many who already believe global warming is a menace will flock to the film; many who scoff at the notion will opt for Tom Cruise or Tom Hanks. But has anything happened in recent years that should cause a reasonable person to switch sides in the global-warming debate?

Yes: the science has changed from ambiguous to near-unanimous. As an environmental commentator, I have a long record of opposing alarmism. But based on the data I'm now switching sides regarding global warming, from skeptic to convert.

Once global-warming science was too uncertain to form the basis of policy decisions — and this was hardly just the contention of oil executives. "There is no evidence yet" of dangerous climate change, a National Academy of Sciences report said in 1991. A 1992 survey of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society found that only 17 percent of members believed there was sufficient grounds to declare an artificial greenhouse effect in progress. In 1993 Thomas Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center, said there existed "a great range of uncertainty" regarding whether the world is warming. Clearly, the question called for more research.

That research is now in, and it shows a strong scientific consensus that an artificially warming world is a real phenomenon posing real danger:

[cogitator]

Scientific substantiation of a warming world is not necessarily reason for gloom. Greenhouse gases are an air pollution problem, and all air pollution problems of the past have cost significantly less to fix than critics projected, and the solutions have worked faster than expected.

Seems like a decent attitude.

[Steely Tom]

Sure. Just elect Algore president, and you'll not hear another peep from the MSM about global warming, or the homeless, or illegal immigration, or the price of gas, or damage due to hurricanes, or the war on terrorism. Instead, it'll be non-stop stories about how great the economy is, and how refusing to face reality is actually a good thing to do because so many glamorous and powerful people do it all the time, and about how Occidental Petroleum Company is the model for enlightened corporate culture, but Shell Oil and Exxon Mobil and all the others are bad, bad, bad. I can't wait.

[Ben Mugged]

Hey Al! I'll give you a hint as to the cause of global warming.....

[cogitator]

ping

[l33t]

Agreed, the attitude is decent. However, the past air pollution
problems mainly involved CFC and Sulfure Oxide gases. CFC which damaged the ozone layer was substituted for by another related gas, while emissions of Sulfur Oxide were cut without significant costs. Cutting the emissions of carbon monoxide emitted by vehicle exhausts, coal, oil fired power generating plants would be very costly.

[Enchante]

"Mr. Bush should speak to history by proposing a binding greenhouse-credit trading system within the United States. Waiting for science no longer justifies delay, as results are now in."

The question is not merely whether there is ANY human-related impact on temperatures, it is the magnitude of such impact and the possible remedy..... overall global temperatures MAY have increased by 0.6 degrees over the past century, and human-caused emissions MAY have contributed to a fraction of that change. Taking limited steps (ala Kyoto, etc.) will be inconsequential and meaningless, while taking drastic measures (even if the political will could somehow be mustered across the world) is not even remotely warranted.

This is absurd - no significant change in "Greenhouse emissions" will occur without getting the whole world onboard with any such changes, especially China and India - that's one reason the Kyoto Treaty was so useless, because on its own terms it couldn't even begin to have a significant effect on the problem it claimed to address.

[MNJohnnie]

I see. Wonder how much he is being paid to filp? Just get a nice fat job offer from one of the Enviormental wacko groups perhaps?

Dear Eco fools, explain the global warming being seen on Mars? HUMANS are NOT the center of the Universe. Get over yourselves. Global Warming on Mars http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1488731/posts

[cogitator]

Cutting the emissions of carbon monoxide emitted by vehicle exhausts, coal, oil fired power generating plants would be very costly.

It's carbon dioxide, not carbon monoxide. And as I've noted on other threads, it may become more costly to maintain our current energy infrastructure's dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels; it's gotten a lot more costly recently to drive a car that uses gasoline, hasn't it?

[Gondring]

I hope not. It would be far better if it were something we had control over.

[cogitator]

This is absurd - no significant change in "Greenhouse emissions" will occur without getting the whole world onboard with any such changes,

If oil prices continue to increase, and the vulnerability of the Western and global economies to oil price hikes (and terrorism and hurricanes) becomes more and more apparent, it may not be so absurd to get the world on board with some systemic changes.

[cogitator]

Global Warming on Mars http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1488731/posts

Global Warming on Mars?

(it's not what you think)

[Ben Mugged]

A little research. http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/varsun.html

[Mr Rogers]

Case Closed: The Debate about Global Warming is Over

The Brookings Institution, May 17, 2006

Gregg Easterbrook, Visiting Fellow, Governance Studies

Executive Summary

Here's the short version of everything you need to know about global warming. First, the consensus of the scientific community has shifted from skepticism to near-unanimous acceptance of the evidence of an artificial greenhouse effect. Second, while artificial climate change may have some beneficial effects, the odds are we're not going to like it. Third, reducing emissions of greenhouse gases may turn out to be much more practical and affordable than currently assumed.

Here's what I think you need to know: temperatures are rising. We don't know why, and we don't know if this is a 10 year trend, a 100 year trend, or long term change. Remember - 100 years is nothing when you talk global warming/cooling.

We don't know how to slow it or change it. But we know humans survived when ice covered europe, so there's a good chance that folks will survive regardless.

However, if you want to suggest we need nukes for power plants, have a nut.

Besides, I live in southern Arizona - I like it hot!

[EQAndyBuzz]

I am one who believes our earth is being destroyed by global warming. However, saying that, I am also one who believes that a nation not allowed to grow due to marxist policies harms us more than helps us.

We are not allowed to explore for resources and build refineries to process cleaner fuels, yet our existing methodology for extracting and processing resources is inefficient. We cannot clear cut old growth forests to benefit the earth, yet fires burn 100's of 100's of acres each year, adding to the pollution.

We develop new sources of energy(wind, solar) yet we cannot implement it due to NIMBY policies.

Yet, scientists and envirowhackos who are paid by the same marxist special interests, who are impeding progress insist that we are a dying world and need to do something about it. Problem is, like unions and lower income people relegated to living off the government teet, it is they who are impeding progress and are just too stupid to know it.

In the end, I ask some simple questions of these scientists. Assuming you are correct and we have to end global warming, how will the world be protected from the ensuing ice age that will follow? How will we grow food? How will we earn a living to support our families? What makes you think that you are right, when the people who are paying you cannot be trusted and have been proven wrong over and over? How can we, as a nation trust you scientists when your theories have proven incorrect time after time.

Crying wolf no longer flys with me. We need to tell these bozos where to stick it and move forward with progress. That is how we grow.

[Uncle Miltie]

Kill yourself. It's the clear answer to Global Warming.

[Enchante]

You didn't address my point, which is that no such "solution" within the USA is a solution at all, even within the terms asserted by the Gore-bots. No "solution" within the Kyoto framework is a solution at all. IF all the "facts" are as asserted, then the only solution will involve drastic changes for China, India, and all of the world, not merely cosmetic changes for the USA and Europe. You can see the profoundly unserious nature of people like Algore by the fact that they claim this vast crisis and then propose merely cosmetic changes that do not begin to address the real problem they claim to see.

[Gondring]

But we know humans survived when ice covered europe, so there's a good chance that folks will survive regardless.

Yeah, but people don't seem to be happy about cutting back CO2 emissions, let alone wear hides and exist at low population densities of that previous "survivlal"... The point isn't so much "will we survive?" as "what do we do to deal with what is happening, whether it's us or not..." and "what will it do to our lives."

[Gondring]

My point exactly.

The response to that is far different from if it's purely atmospheric. A space elevator and solar shields would be awesome, but that takes some planning...and there's the liklihood that it's a polygenetic change.

[cogitator]

You didn't address my point, which is that no such "solution" within the USA is a solution at all, even within the terms asserted by the Gore-bots. No "solution" within the Kyoto framework is a solution at all. IF all the "facts" are as asserted, then the only solution will involve drastic changes for China, India, and all of the world, not merely cosmetic changes for the USA and Europe.

I agree that the problem is global; the solution (changing the way that the world produces energy) is global, too. I have never thought that the Kyoto protocol is useful. What's useful would be economic targets for alternate energy production and changes in energy usage patterns.

You can see the profoundly unserious nature of people like Algore by the fact that they claim this vast crisis and then propose merely cosmetic changes that do not begin to address the real problem they claim to see.

I think Gore's first goal has been to convince the majority of the public and enough politicians that there is a problem -- and he has to contend with someone like Senator Inhofe who claim's it's all a hoax, and a book like Crichton's that claims somewhat the same thing. (And previously books like Lomborg's, though Lomborg wasn't as sanguine about climate change as some of his other issues.) I don't know what Gore is proposing to DO about it (and I'd be curious to know). I know what I would do about it -- point our country toward big changes in energy infrastructure.

[cogitator]

I am one who believes our earth is being destroyed by global warming.

I wouldn't go that far, but it is an issue with the potential for serious consequences (societal and environmental) if it is not addressed.

Assuming you are correct and we have to end global warming, how will the world be protected from the ensuing ice age that will follow? How will we grow food? How will we earn a living to support our families? What makes you think that you are right, when the people who are paying you cannot be trusted and have been proven wrong over and over? How can we, as a nation trust you scientists when your theories have proven incorrect time after time.

That's a lot of questions. Taking the last first, science is a process of self-correction and refinement. Theories are proven wrong because more explanatory theories take their place. As for climate, we have nothing to fear from an ensuing ice age, and the "entry" into a true Ice Age would take centuries, and the world could adapt. But now, there is a potential for accelerated climate change and accompanying effects for which adaptation may be difficult (and it includes effects on such vital areas as food production and water resources). Science needs to work with society and plan for alternatives to mitigate the potential downsides.