Global Weirding

[TulipsAndSunscreen]

If you read SuperFreakonomics any time soon, it supports 1) that though carbon dioxide isn't good, it's really not the cause of global warming and 2) that the whole thing is really blown out of proportion. It's interesting because I really thought it was irrefutable at this point but even the scientists who wanted it to be true were admitting that it's been WAY blown out of proportion.

[Sheherezade]

In response to the original article and this follow up from Laker:

His position is that human caused global warming now "climate change" actually exists and that nobody should question the science behind it.

Not true - at lest in this article. I don't see that he states anywhere that humans cause climate change. I don't think the article had much to say about whether humans cause climate change or not. It specifies in point number two that THAT is the current debate - and gives ideas to the "left" to better deliver their argument. He doesn't say they are right. He also states that they have made several boneheaded moves. In points 3 and 4 and reasons that we should not be distracted by the debate and make poor economic choices as a country. Quoting from the original posted Friedman article:

3) Those who favor taking action are saying: “Because the warming that humans are doing is irreversible and potentially catastrophic, let’s buy some insurance — by investing in renewable energy, energy efficiency and mass transit — because this insurance will also actually make us richer and more secure.” We will import less oil, invent and export more clean-tech products, send fewer dollars overseas to buy oil and, most importantly, diminish the dollars that are sustaining the worst petro-dictators in the world who indirectly fund terrorists and the schools that nurture them.
4) Even if climate change proves less catastrophic than some fear, in a world that is forecast to grow from 6.7 billion to 9.2 billion people between now and 2050, more and more of whom will live like Americans, demand for renewable energy and clean water is going to soar. It is obviously going to be the next great global industry

Goes on to say that China is happy we are NOT investing in alternative energies because they certainly are. Concludes.

I still don't have a problem with the logic in this article. I don't think investing in alternative fuels is a bad idea -- and I think that decreasing our purchases from oil rich Arab nations is a great idea.

[PrincessFiona]

I liked the article.

It's my understanding that the climate does change in cycles, but I have to really question the reason that some people absolutely refuse to look at whether or not we are causing things to change more rapidly. Many people that I talk with on this issue can't talk about the science behind it either...they just feel strongly one way or another. It is very unlikely that we are having no impact, and though mistakes have been made on both sides re: release of scientific articles, etc. that doesn't mean we can throw the baby out with the bathwater and refuse to look objectively at information that has come out from all of the research (that we agree and disagree with).

Ultimately, Global warming/weirding can't be our biggest reason for stepping into cleaner energies. I suppose it's easier to defend going to war in the middle east than to become less dependent on oil. It seems to me our country would rather invest money in rebuilding other countries to stay on tap than to put that money into research and development here. It's too bad, seeing as America no longer produces anything. Think of how it could help out our economy to become leaders in clean energy....

Naaaah...better to change the topic and debate global warming instead... <sarcasm>



Kris

[DCJenn]

I agree completely, Kris. Regardless of whether you think we're responsible or not, the fact remains that 1) oil is a finite resource regardless of what the commercials tell you, 2) we have a HUGE problem with pollution in our water and air and 3) as far as I know, wind and solar power are FREE which means that once the power supply is built, no one will get to make bajillions of dollars. (which no doubt doubt scares the bejeezuz out of the oil and coal people.) If you've ever seen a strip mined mountain top in Pennsylvania or West Virginia you can see plainly that coal has a devastating impact on the environment regardless of whether the emissions or output have created climate change. It's still impacted the water and the air and the land.

I mean right now there's a island of plastic trash in the Pacific Ocean. How can anyone argue that the petroleum used to make those plastic bags was polluting, the pastic bags themselves ARE polluting and whether the CO2 emitted from the plant changed the temperature one nth of a degree or not, we still have wasted resources and a big ass pile of trash.

and now that I'm totally off topic and in to actual solutions, I really like the idea that some municipalities are using of taking the geo thermal heat created in the landfills and using it for power.

Jenn