Azazello1313 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 (edited) NEW YORK (Fortune) -- With Congress about to take up sweeping climate-change legislation, expect to hear more in coming weeks from John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at University of Alabama-Huntsville. A veteran climatologist who refuses to accept any research funding from the oil or auto industries, Christy was a lead author of the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report as well as one of the three authors of the American Geophysical Union's landmark 2003 statement on climate change. Yet despite those green-sounding credentials, Christy is not calling for draconian cuts in carbon emissions. Quite the contrary. Christy is actually the environmental lobby's worst nightmare - an accomplished climate scientist with no ties to Big Oil who has produced reams and reams of data that undermine arguments that the earth's atmosphere is warming at an unusual rate and question whether the remedies being talked about in Congress will actually do any good. Q: When you testified before Ways and Means, did you have any sense that committee members on either side were open to having their minds changed? Or are views set in stone at this point? A: Generally people believe what they want to believe, so their minds will not change. However, as the issue is exposed in terms of economics and cost benefit - in my view, it's all cost and no benefit - I think some of the people will take one step backward and say, Let me investigate the science a little more closely. Q: What about the better-safe-than-sorry argument? Even if there's a chance Gore and Hansen are wrong, shouldn't we still take action in order to protect ourselves from catastrophe, just in case they're right? A: The problem is that the solutions being offered don't provide any detectable relief from this so-called catastrophe. Congress is now discussing an 80% reduction in U.S. greenhouse emissions by 2050. That's basically the equivalent of building 1,000 new nuclear power plants all operating by 2020. Now I'm all in favor of nuclear energy, but that would affect the global temperature by only seven-hundredths of a degree by 2050 and fifteen hundredths by 2100. We wouldn't even notice it. read the whole thing, very informative. for my part, I think it's clear the earth has been warming somewhat over the last 100 years or so (although it seems it may be cooling over the last decade). from what I can tell it is also very likely that there is some warming effect due to human activity releasing carbon that had been trapped in the crust into the atmosphere. I just think those effects are hugely overblown by those who stand to profit, politically and/or monetarily, by the hysteria. in my opinion, in 20 years we're going to look back at stuff like al gore's movie and see it as the same kind of corny relic as hal lindsay's "the late great planet earth". in a sense, it's all good. it is good to live cleaner and consume less. chemicals in the air around us and in the water are bad. the general "greener" outlook has resulted in some good choices by tons of people that result in them leaving a smaller footprint. but a lot of the proposed inter-governmental regulation type stuff scares me. as that christy guy says, all cost and no benefit -- except for those who wish to consolidate political and economic power under their own umbrellas. Edited June 2, 2009 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Az I agree completely with your post. Like most of the constantly debated issues on this forum, there is a sensible middle ground. Everyone gets sooo eager to whip out quotes from fox news or Al Gore to support their "argument" without taking the time to evaluate whether that argument is even valid. I would say the majority of Americans think that pollution and f@cking up the environment is bad. I see a fanatic few espousing everything that Al Gore wants and insist that the world will end if these things arent changed. I also see a fanatic few like H8 who refuses to acknowledge anything unless it is spewed from the fountain of misinformation that is Rush Limbaugh. Remember when the big deal in the 1990's was deforestation? Whatever happened to that crusade? Then again . . . this WAS a good movie . . . http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi2374697241/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Question: Aren't we going through a cyclical period right now of less solar activity and hence less heat from the Sun to the Earth? Do the scientists take into account what any real global warming numbers will look like once that cyclical period is over? Will we have very real identifiable and ratcheted up heating once that cycle is over? I have not done much research in this area. I just know I have seen the cyclical solar activity comments now and again and was wondering if global warming numbers were sort of "adjusted for inflation" or what have you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I agree with Az and BP, pollution is bad. I'm just not sure I believe man has much if anything to do with global warming, and I'm not sure how much if anything our efforts to hold it off will do. There is no doubt that our planet has cycles. I question of CO2 should be considered a pollutant. I'm all for clean air and water. I actually have a 8'x8' compost bin on the side of my house, and my third garage is filled with milk jugs, aluminum cans, and flattened cardboard and squished shredded paper, that all gets taken to the recycle center about every 4 times a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Like most of the constantly debated issues on this forum, there is a sensible middle ground. Everyone gets sooo eager to whip out quotes from fox news or Al Gore to support their "argument" without taking the time to evaluate whether that argument is even valid. I think that you could search back a very long time and not find anyone quoting Al Gore on anything. These arguments here are always the same. The same people who argued that Iraq had WMDs long after it was proven that they didn't... and who argued that Bush didn't leak info to discredit Valerie Plame long after it was obvious that he did... and who argue now that the banks were helpless to resist democrats forcing them to give mortgages to people they shouldn't have... those people post ridiculous claims that pollution is good and that climate change can't be caused by man. And it's nonsense. Then they claim that we rant and wail like 60's hippies and pledge allegiance to Al Gore because that suits their stereotypes. It's not true. I just want responsible legislation to limit pollution and carbon emissions just like the rest of the civilized world is doing. It's not a ridiculous concept. Don't give credence to their argument that a bunch of tree huggers are trying to kill business. That's their fantasy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 I have not done much research in this area. I had no idea. It doesn't show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheikYerbuti Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Oh goody. . .this again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mucca Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 So has Global Warming been going on since the Ice Age ended? And when the Ice Age was just beginning, did they call that Global Freezing? Just curious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 I just want responsible legislation to limit pollution and carbon emissions just like the rest of the civilized world is doing. It's not a ridiculous concept. surely you allow for the possibility that this can be taken too far. surely you acknowledge that carbon emissions in particular are the subject of wide debate across the scientific community in terms of just how much of an impact they truly have. all az is saying is that we can indeed go overboard here and have a negative impact on our corporations and our economy for no true benefit. surely for a reasonable guy as you appear to be, you acknowledge these things, no? and if indeed this is true, would the legislation still be the responsible thing to do, or would it be the unnecessary thing to do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Remember when the big deal in the 1990's was deforestation? Whatever happened to that crusade? Still a colossal deal, just not getting the publicity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Still a colossal deal, just not getting the publicity. Why is it not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Oh goody. . .this again. Anybody else read this in Stuwie's voice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Anybody else read this in Stuwie's voice? I was thinking Randy Quaid in of mice and men. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 America would be so better off if the National Park Service were a division of Exxon. Understood. So Christy argues we are in a normal warming pattern wholly unrelated to global factors caused by human behavior actually within the atmosphere but is, instead, due to changes in solar winds and the angle of cosmic rays? Beam me up Scotty Away from what Christy has to say, I always wonder what deinfes a "natural cycle". When we talk about "natural cyclical causes" are we are including the thousands of years the earth is molten lava after a 6 mile wide meteors strike near Cozumel? Are we factoring in the temperature during ice ages? Do we leave those temperatures out? Why is the heat from urbanization considered a distortion when you can feel it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Oh goody. . .this again. So once again I'll point out that 99% of the time, a global warming thread is started by a conservative... Then it goes on and on until they look foolish, because essentially they are arguing a crazy conspiracy theory that scientists are trying to deceive the world for some mysterious non-specific payoff, and that huge corporate interests are the innocent helpless victims just trying to tell the truth. And then they start a new thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheikYerbuti Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 A global warming thread just ain't all it can be until McBoog shows up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Then it goes on and on until they look foolish, because essentially they are arguing a crazy conspiracy theory that scientists are trying to deceive the world for some mysterious non-specific payoff, and that huge corporate interests are the innocent helpless victims just trying to tell the truth. Exactly. You not only have to believe in a far-fetched conspiracy theory that experts who study climate want the United States to become a Socialist State , you have to ignore every shred of common sense on who was more to lose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 So...here is what I don't understand: We have these discussions on global warming, and we are not alone. They happen all over the place. For me, even as what some here would label a "Typical Conservative", I don't see the harm in telling companies that they can't increase their emissions with abandon. There is already a gas tax, so I am not sure why we need to create some new policy to penalize SUV owners more. They are already paying more gas tax since they use more gas per mile. I guess what I am saying is that so long as everyone is being put through the same requirements with respect to making efforts to keep the environment in better shape, then what's the issue? This is one of those times where, if I were to reference the constitution, I would say that science was not well advanced enough in this regard at the time for the founders to give the government the power to oversee this area, but I would also say that through the necessary and proper clause and with keeping an eye towards the provisions of promoting (and in spirit embracing) arts and sciences, that this is an area in which the government indeed does and should hold sway. What's the issue with congress telling the automakers "Hey...there are engineering concepts out there right now that would reduce emissions and heat pollution from autos by a significant margin, but you are ignoring those technologies because of (some reason involving profit/cronies/etc.). Embrace the technology, develop some adequate technology of your own, or face some expenses!". Seriously......I am about as small gov't focused as anyone, but with all the conflicting sata on this subject why would we not take the safer route and let the government do it's intended job (for once). If they would focus on these issues and not the majority of the crap they spend time on I would be a much happier citizen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 So once again I'll point out that 99% of the time, a global warming thread is started by a conservative... Then it goes on and on until they look foolish, because essentially they are arguing a crazy conspiracy theory that scientists are trying to deceive the world for some mysterious non-specific payoff, and that huge corporate interests are the innocent helpless victims just trying to tell the truth. And then they start a new thread. I'll be glad when I compile the amount of earth science education that you have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 3, 2009 Author Share Posted June 3, 2009 so, have bush or atomic responded in any substantive way to anything john christy had to say? gee, I wonder why not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 So once again I'll point out that 99% of the time, a global warming thread is started by a conservative... So when your leaders like alf bore tell me we are killing the planet and we are all gonna die if we don't spend gajillionz on new crazy schit.... you're cool with that? Just suck that teet lectric boy and spend your 800 hours on a $7000 electric car that basically runs on coal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 so, have bush or atomic responded in any substantive way to anything john christy had to say? gee, I wonder why not. Maybe because neither is a climate scientist? Certainly you're not implying that they couldn't easily find mountains of data from other reputed scientist to support the opposite of what Christy is suggesting. So, again, it comes back to this. We've got scientists, you've got scientists. Each has theories and evidence to support those theories. So great, this guy isn't getting paid by Energy or Auto companies. Was that all you needed, to simply find one guy (hell, even a few guys) who isn't a puppet of the auto industry to say this is not a man made issue and that's it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 people act like our government doesn't already blow 10x that amount of money on complete bullchit.... and in rebuttal to the title of the thread... "what if they aren't?"..... we've already seen how ...precious our economy is over the past decade and now we're protecting that because it costs too much money....in exchange for what might be the end of us?.. it definitely sounds like another fear tactic to get us to go along with whatever the gubbermint has planned....and while we've taken the blame, they are the one's who almost refuse to regulate an alternative source for energy as it is.... to sum it up...I've leaned towards the side of believing that we need to take action......and then I leaned towards the side that says it's completely natural.... right now...I believe that a good portion of what we are going through is a natural cycle of the planet....but at least a 3rd of it is from the abuse we've laid on the planet..... ....it's a combination of both....we can afford to go through the problems of taking action.....but can't afford to experience what can happen if we don't.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 its june 3rd and its 49 degrees in chicago right now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 right now...I believe that a good portion of what we are going through is a natural cycle of the planet....but at least a 3rd of it is from the abuse we've laid on the planet..... did you sleep at a holiday inn last night? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.