April 25, 2007
Fixing The Environment One Politician At A Time
Everybody’s talking about the weather—now’s your chance to get out and do something about it. Mayor David Miller is inviting everyone in the city to attend the Climate Change Action Forum this Sunday, April 29 at Exhibition Place.
The Forum is a venue to discuss and shape Toronto’s plan for tackling the related menaces of air pollution and global warming. Participants will have the opportunity to learn more about greenhouse gases and climate change, as well as to provide input on actions currently under consideration by City Hall for reducing emissions in Toronto.
Everyone is welcome to attend, but due to space limitations, organizers ask that interested parties call 416-338-0338 to register in advance.
Climate Change Action ForumExhibition Place is readily accessible by TTC, because you do not want to show up in the Hummer.
Sunday, April 29
Exhibition Place
Direct Energy Centre, Hall C
Open House: Noon-1 p.m.
Forum: 1 p.m.-4:30 p.m.
Photo by 416style from Torontoist Flickr Pool
|
Man-made global warming, whoops, climate change is grossly exaggerated, and possibly even a hoax:
Google "national post climate change deniers" and click on Part 5.
May we now squelch this annoying meme? Or at least talk about it in purely hypothetical terms? Because that's what man-made Co2 emissions-related climate change is, a mere --tenuous--hypothesis.
With all due respect, anyone thinking that climate change isn't ocurring on a drastic level because of human interference is living in a parallel universe.
Hi Johannes,
Read here: www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=222
Sorry Marc, you're a scientist now? Please tell us more about your research into climate change, and how it allows you to completely dismiss all other theories......
The world has gone through warming and cooling cycles in the past. What are you blaming them on? Excessive use of the Cotton Ginny? Horse-cart emissions?
Uh, yeah, LBB, I could really say the same thing back at you. At this point, after virtually universal agreement among credible scientists that humans are causing a vast discrepancy in the usual, cyclical climate change process, the burden of proof lies on you to dispute the evidence—something that nobody has been effectively able to do.
I'm consistently amazed at these eco-deniers who seem to think they have a God-given right to exploit the earth at any cost, especially if it means allegedly benefiting the business economy. There's a general truism "don't shit where you eat," and that's exactly what we're doing. I'm baffled by anyone who, under even the best of environmental circumstances, wouldn't think that reducing our environmental impact would the desirable practice.
Marc: I sense a change of subject with your last response. Just because I doubt that climate change is significantly impacted by man-made Co2 doesn't mean that I'm an "eco-denier" (as if someone can deny ecology) who has "a God given right to exploit the earth at any cost". No, in fact I think that the earth ought to be protected but that one shouldn't waste one's time and everybody else's time on limiting Co2. There's much worse being pumped into the ecosystem on a daily basis, i.e. mercury, other toxic metals, etc.
As for "virtual universal agreement"--there just can't be anything of the sort in meterology. There's hardly universal agreement in any cutting edge research. This science is at such a primitive stage--is it really such a good idea to be throwing so much money at something we hardly understand?
In any case, just as much as I want to weigh the cost of human actions on the earth I'd like to see calmer voices weigh the effects of environmental policy on human affairs. It doesn't have to be an either/or.
Hi.
I'm not an aggressive debater, and I have no intent to attack anyone's character; I assume the scientific opinions already stated were done so in good faith.
I am an undergraduate astrophysics student. I am no "expert" in the field of atmospheric physics, but I have taken classes on the subject. Regardless, the basics of this are accessible on Wikipedia and other free sites.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gasses, when increased in atmospheric concentrations, increase the planet's radiative forcing, upsetting the incoming/outgoing thermal energy balance and leading to an overall increase in global average temperatures. Human activity has increased the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by about 25% in the past 100 years. CO2 is not at all the most potent greenhouse gas, but it is by far the one that our activity has caused the greatest increase of. All things equal, by reducing our CO2 output, we would be levelling off the concentrations of a GHG in the atmosphere, which would reduce the expected growth of radiative forcing and thus, reduce the expected growth of an already rising global average temperature. These are facts; No credible scientist debates these (that I know of).
I read about Richard Lindzen. He's simply cautious of the IPCC report, which is fair enough. I did find this quote though:
"[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas — albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."
It appears to me that he is simply encouraging caution, and his opinion in no way closes the book on global warming, nor does it suggest it's a hoax. Media outlets like to take extreme angles on things (both in favour of and against global warming) so that they can attract viewership - May we keep this in mind.
As to why we should spend money on something we don't yet "fully" understand: science is always a self-correcting rough draft; it is never done; it is never understood. But even an economic utilitarian, with no interest in human and animal life beyond their monetary good, can multiply the cost by the risk of a global temperature increase of 4 degrees celsius (in the mid-range of the IPCC projections for 2100) compared to business-as-usual, and see that it's worth it to make the effort, especially when we're so darn sure that we're responsible for such an increase. By waiting for "all the data" to come in (I quote that because there is no such thing), we willingly put ourselves at risk of -- Well, I won't be a doomsday crier, but at the very least, we put billions of lives at risk (not our own, of course). Several European countries have successfully demonstrated the feasibility of renewable energy in a modern economy; it doesn't have to cripple us.
As for the other poisons Johannes mentioned that we are putting into the environment: Good point. It would serve us well to reduce those too.
It is true that global warming has become a popular issue to discuss. This means lots of people who have a very weak grasp of the science behind it suddenly have a lot to say about it (myself included), and, yes, this can get annoying (I'm not referring to anyone specifically here who has posted, just about people in general). As such, it has also become popular to dismiss cries of global warming as incoherent.
My best advice is: May we get little/none of our atmospheric science knowledge from the mainstream news or corporate-sponsored studies; May we instead familiarize ourselves with data from peer-reviewed reports; May we be cautious (but not altogether mistrusting) of claims made by people who have a strong financial incentive for us to believe them (e.g. exxonmobil); May we have patience with those whose opinions and data sources differ from our own.
I am a strong believer in the absolute usefulness of science, and would gladly discuss further the role of objectivity in science and what I believe to be a lack of public understanding of science. It hurt heliocentrism, it hurt rational thought, and it continues to hurt biology and atmospheric physics today (regardless of the truth/falsity of anthropogenic global warming).
Phew. Thanks.