Comments on: Global Warming

By: Aaron

Aaron — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 22:07:25 +0000

Global warming, if it actually exists, should be something we should take more seriously. The only problem is that it might not destroy the wolr, maybe it will lead to something else. I think of it as a cycle that will need to another ice age. It may put a little bit of land under water, but we can't stop that, it's a cycle the world could have gone through before we even existed.

By: Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:50:35 +0000

The arrogance and rigidity displayed by ErikH renders his entire post a laughable exercise in self-referencing irony. Somehow I suspect Judge Posner wouldn't be impressed.

By: BB

BB — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:09:43 +0000

Where is all the strong evidence that global warming is caused by man? The only things that science agrees on is that people have released CO2 in the air, that CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, and that theoretically CO2 will increase global mean temperatures. Global warming proponents say that we have thousands of years of data that shows a correlation between global temperature and CO2 concentrations, but the same data shows CO2 lagging behind global temperature by 800 years. If CO2 was causing global warming, can someone explain to me why the stratosphere is not warming. Even the computer models made by climate scientists show that the stratosphere should be warming faster than the earth's surface.

I'm not saying that global warming isn't occuring or isn't due to man; I just do not believe we have enough evidence either way to begin making policy changes on this issue. I don't care about a consensus of scientists. The good thing about science is that you can look at the data yourself and come up with your own conclusions. Scientific consensus believed in a flat earth and global cooling.

Personnally, I think environmentalists should be focusing more on toxins released into the air and water instead of chasing an idea that isn't proven.

By: Globalwarming

Globalwarming — Sun, 04 Jun 2006 23:15:50 +0000

There is very good information on this site. We all understand that it critical to understand what is going on. That is why we started the ?Global Warming Forum.? We must be willing to share ideas and talk about the climate changes that are taking place.

By: JS

JS — Mon, 18 Jul 2005 20:52:26 +0000

ErikH: Your comment is correct if one defines conservatives as those who do not think flexibly, and liberals as those who do. But I do not think that definition would fit the real world very well. You started out by talking about "ultraconservatives" but then switched to talking about "conservatives," and you seem to equate conservatives with religious fundamentalists. No doubt, there are many of those in the U.S. But I would suggest that there is also a number of conservatives who could also be called classical liberals, they think for themselves but simply do not believe, based on evidence, that big-government solutions work well. For example, many libertarians could be called conservatives, in that they are generally opposed to a big state, even though they are generally not religious fundamentalists. Thinking conservatives of this kind and other kinds, in my own experience, thoughtfully considered, have experiences different from yours, leading them to read the evidence differently, or leading them to see different evidence. We all contribute to public debate more effectively if we are open to the possibility that not everyone on the opposite side is unthinking. If we do view them as unthinking, we will not persuade them, and will even turn off some of the broad-minded people on our own side. Some on the other side are fools, of course. But not all.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 31 Aug 2004 12:05:11 +0000

Have we ever had another period in recorded history where the 2 poles were shrinking at such a rate. Sometimes you have to look for other clues.

Oasis Wellness Network

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 28 Aug 2004 15:36:24 +0000

Any discussion of CO2 output, for instance, ought to mention the comparatively recent revelations about increased solar output, which appear to explain global warming quite adequately without any significant input from Humanity

I'm not sure what you mean, Sigivald. Perhaps you are referring to an article a few weeks back in Rupert Murdoch's Daily Telegraph, which claimed, as you do, that solar variations are the cause of current global warming. They referenced the work of a physicist named Sami Solanki at the Max Planck Institute, and claimed that his research reached the conclusion I just outlined.

However, when I actually tracked down Solanki's published research, I found the exact opposite. A pair of recent papers by Solanki and Natalie Krivova found that while solar variation explains temperature trends through about 1970 very well, solar variation cannot account for the observed warming trend of the past 25 years.

In other words, the Telegraph reported the exact opposite of the facts--no surprise, considering the publisher.

By: Diane Bay

Diane Bay — Sat, 28 Aug 2004 01:55:54 +0000

Fred,

Here's an unbiased link.

http://www.tamug.edu/labb/Global_Warming_Info.htm

How could it be a "mistake" to, for example, stop stripping the Amazon of trees? Saplings are just not that expensive.

Diane Bay

By: Diane Bay

Diane Bay — Sat, 28 Aug 2004 00:29:26 +0000

Richard,

Are there charts that show average temperatures worldwide increasing more than usual since 1970? Would you send me one?

I don't care if skeptics say the equations have a lot of unknown variables; if the temperatures worldwide are rising, then global warming is REAL.

Diane Bay

By: ErikH

ErikH — Fri, 27 Aug 2004 21:12:10 +0000

What you see here was discussed in a brilliant article which sadly I don't recall the title of. Here's the gist of it:

The same people who are liberal and believe (based on experience) that global warming is real and evolution is correct are generally those who are 1) willing to change their opinion given sufficient evidence.

Conversely, those on the ultraconservative side--no global warming, no evolution, etc etc (think abortion, gun control, etc) are generally unwilling to change their belief. An example is my highly religious friend, who in response to my question "you mean that even if God sent an angel to you and told you to stop following the Bible and use a magic 8-ball you wouldn't change?" said "No. if he did that he wouldn't be God".

Liberals can--in some cases--be convinced to adopt a conservative view. This makes sense, as liberals prode themselves on their willingness to adopt new viewpoints based on data. I'm an example; I've read papers that had me decided global warming was too huge a trend to be affected by human intervention, though I have since read other material which has changed my mind.

Conservatives, on the other hand, can almost never be convinced to adopt a liberal view, because both their views and their thought processes are conservative.

This means that liberals can become conservative relatively easily, by the advent of new data supporting a conservative view. Conversely, conservatives will rarely adopt liberal views, even when their own personal beliefs conflict with reality--because it's the beliefs that matter, not reality.

And THAT, my friends, is why there are so many more conservatives who deny reality than have any right to exist.

Judge Posner, like my response? Want to hire me as your clerk? :)