Comments on: EarthTalk: Does a Cold and Snowy Winter Mean Global Warming is Bunk? http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/2009/02/16/earthtalk-does-a-cold-and-snowy-winter-mean-global-warming-is-bunk/ News, Resources, and Commentary on Climate Change, Energy, and Sustainability Sat, 13 Mar 2010 11:17:10 -0800 hourly 1 By: Greg http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/2009/02/16/earthtalk-does-a-cold-and-snowy-winter-mean-global-warming-is-bunk/#comment-27431 Greg Wed, 24 Feb 2010 23:01:31 +0000 http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/?p=1764#comment-27431 Thanks Tom. I enjoyed the video on risk management...even forwarded it to a friend. I thought it was a good approach to the topic. One of the things that is most frustrating about the climate change discussion is the way people think of scientists. As in other controversial areas, scientists are assumed to have an agenda, whereas to my knowledge it seems that scientists are about the most dispassionate people I know. Oh, I forgot to ask if you had ever heard of the "Anthropic Principle." It drives people like Richard Dawkins a little nuts, but the alternatives to it are even nuttier to me. I'm thinking of another question or two...I'll write back in a while. Greg Thanks Tom. I enjoyed the video on risk management…even forwarded it to a friend. I thought it was a good approach to the topic. One of the things that is most frustrating about the climate change discussion is the way people think of scientists. As in other controversial areas, scientists are assumed to have an agenda, whereas to my knowledge it seems that scientists are about the most dispassionate people I know.

Oh, I forgot to ask if you had ever heard of the "Anthropic Principle." It drives people like Richard Dawkins a little nuts, but the alternatives to it are even nuttier to me. I'm thinking of another question or two…I'll write back in a while.

Greg

]]> By: Thomas Schueneman http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/2009/02/16/earthtalk-does-a-cold-and-snowy-winter-mean-global-warming-is-bunk/#comment-27419 Thomas Schueneman Sun, 21 Feb 2010 19:28:36 +0000 http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/?p=1764#comment-27419 Hey greg, Thanks for the reply. First, yes, it is hard to have a calm discussion about this issue isn't it? Very unfortunate. I appreciate that we seem to be having a calm discussion. Too bad, indeed, for all those other people. To your points: Well, rising sea levels is one of the possible consequences of global warming (along with an increasingly acidic ocean), but there are other impacts as well. A disrupted hydrological cycle, disappearing ice, species and habitat migration and/or destruction, etc. But yes, some areas could benefit from global warming. Where I think I'd take issue with your statement is when you say "on balance." I'm not really convinced that the consequences of a worst case scenario will be beneficial on balance. And whatever we think of the science, it comes down to a problem of risk management, doesn't it? There's a guy on YouTube that explains this really well. If you're interested, check him out at http://www.youtube.com/user/wonderingmind42 I really wish there was the political will to start investing for the future in terms of transforming our energy economy and mitigation, but given the furor over a winter blizzard in DC and the east, I'm pessimistic. Finally - yep, you've blown my mind! An interesting proposal that earth's climate is changing to accommodate the larger human population, but I'm not sure I'd bet the farm on that. It's also possible (likely?) that earth is moving to a new balance, a new equilibrium, based on all us humans and our activity, and we are unprepared for the harsh consequences. Thanks for the comments, feel free to continue the discussion if you like. You can call me Tom Hey greg,

Thanks for the reply. First, yes, it is hard to have a calm discussion about this issue isn't it? Very unfortunate. I appreciate that we seem to be having a calm discussion. Too bad, indeed, for all those other people.

To your points:
Well, rising sea levels is one of the possible consequences of global warming (along with an increasingly acidic ocean), but there are other impacts as well. A disrupted hydrological cycle, disappearing ice, species and habitat migration and/or destruction, etc.

But yes, some areas could benefit from global warming. Where I think I'd take issue with your statement is when you say "on balance." I'm not really convinced that the consequences of a worst case scenario will be beneficial on balance. And whatever we think of the science, it comes down to a problem of risk management, doesn't it? There's a guy on YouTube that explains this really well. If you're interested, check him out at http://www.youtube.com/user/wonderingmind42

I really wish there was the political will to start investing for the future in terms of transforming our energy economy and mitigation, but given the furor over a winter blizzard in DC and the east, I'm pessimistic.

Finally – yep, you've blown my mind! An interesting proposal that earth's climate is changing to accommodate the larger human population, but I'm not sure I'd bet the farm on that. It's also possible (likely?) that earth is moving to a new balance, a new equilibrium, based on all us humans and our activity, and we are unprepared for the harsh consequences.

Thanks for the comments, feel free to continue the discussion if you like. You can call me Tom

]]> By: Greg http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/2009/02/16/earthtalk-does-a-cold-and-snowy-winter-mean-global-warming-is-bunk/#comment-27412 Greg Thu, 18 Feb 2010 18:23:10 +0000 http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/?p=1764#comment-27412 Thomas - I left a comment back on 2/7 sorry to take so long to follow up. I think the source of my musing about CFC's probably came from an article in Science Magazine a few years ago. I couldn't find the reference though. Hey I have another question. If the worst case scenario for climate change causes sea levels to rise by a few feet, obviously that would have a devastating economic impact, which I figure is the main reason governments are working to avert such a disaster. HOWEVER, on balance, aren't there benefits to warming? I've read (again can't remember where) that many regions of the earth would be greatly enriched by climate change. Increased growing seasons, more rainfall, more habitable areas... Is it possible that a major reason for the alarm is that it will wreck the economy? If so, why not begin investing in areas that will be helped by this scenario and moving people away from the areas that will be ruined? And this will really blow your mind, but, maybe the earth's climate is changing to accommodate the larger population of humans. Kind of the Anthropic Principle at work, I suppose. It is so hard to have a calm discussion about this issue. Too bad. Thomas – I left a comment back on 2/7 sorry to take so long to follow up. I think the source of my musing about CFC's probably came from an article in Science Magazine a few years ago. I couldn't find the reference though. Hey I have another question. If the worst case scenario for climate change causes sea levels to rise by a few feet, obviously that would have a devastating economic impact, which I figure is the main reason governments are working to avert such a disaster. HOWEVER, on balance, aren't there benefits to warming? I've read (again can't remember where) that many regions of the earth would be greatly enriched by climate change. Increased growing seasons, more rainfall, more habitable areas… Is it possible that a major reason for the alarm is that it will wreck the economy? If so, why not begin investing in areas that will be helped by this scenario and moving people away from the areas that will be ruined? And this will really blow your mind, but, maybe the earth's climate is changing to accommodate the larger population of humans. Kind of the Anthropic Principle at work, I suppose.

It is so hard to have a calm discussion about this issue. Too bad.

]]>