Comments

Well, John - I'm very surprised to see you post with such a low level of understanding of such an important subject on Tom Peters' web site.

If you have the time to watch Al Gore's essential movie, you will see that there is no disagreement in the scientific community that Global Warming is real and that we are causing it. There is plenty of disagreement in the business community because many businesses stand to lose money as their activities are scaled back to help the rest of us cope with the situation. And there are many sources of disinformation to fuel that uncertainty - such as those funded by Exxon-Mobil.

So you ask the business community - are they convinced - aren't they the wrong people to ask - shouldn't we ask the scientists who have really gone into this.

You mention sun spots as the source of Global Warming - see An Inconvenient Truth which knocks that theory on the head - and is hard to argue around - every business person should watch it!

John - I'd be interested to see what you post after you see the movie

Cheers

Mike Bennett

Posted by Mike Bennett at February 5, 2007 5:54 PM

Mike is exactly correct. Inconvenient Truth is an excellent movie (if you can get past Al Gore's bravado-ness) that brought 'awareness' to me about a serious problem. It's really time for people to get informed. I don't think the cynics can continue their argument too much longer.

I think ultimately we need to invest in new technologies (Hydro, Ethanol, Solar, Electric, etc.) not just because of rising carbon emissions, but because it makes sense! These newer technologies are unlimited vs. the current solution. I appreciate the market dictates direction, but I think it is time to be more aggressive in implementing these changes. Disappointingly, we as the leading nation should be on the forefront not in the rear.

Here is a quick hint you can do today....change all of your bulbs to CFC lighting.

Posted by Patrick Clements at February 5, 2007 6:22 PM

From my reading of the literature, there is definitely disagreement among the experts. Not long ago "global cooling" was the concern: see the article in Wikipedia. But I'm being cautious ... my wife and I have only one car and we're planning to downsize that. We've cut down on travel ... and we do everything paperless (i.e., by internet) that we can.

Posted by Mike L at February 5, 2007 6:39 PM

At this point in time, there seems to be very little disagreement in the scientific community. While there are some scientific skeptics, they are few and far between - this is not a 50-50 situation, but something more like 99 - 1, yet many articles seem to feel the need to give a "balanced" viewpoint that gives the neigh-sayers something that looks like equal weight.

Meanwhile, even if we don't all believe that global warming is occuring because of man-made causes, but is happening naturally, shouldn't we still be trying to figure out what we can do to stave it off? I mean, the ice age was natural, too, but if we knew it was coming - and there were billions of people in its way - wouldn't we have used our brains, technology, etc. to try to figure out how to stop it from destroying us?

Also, for those who aren't aware of it, there's a group called the US Climate Action Partnership - 10 CEO's from GE, Lehman Bros, Dupont et al who've joined forces with the Natural Resources Defense Council to work to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Business is getting on board - no longer resisting the notion of global warming in fear that doing something about it will negatively impact the economy. (They're starting to realize that NOT doing anything about it will really negatively impact the economy.)

Posted by Maureen Rogers at February 5, 2007 7:17 PM

If there weren't any humans there would still be global warming. This planet was here billions of years before we showed up. And it would still be here billions of years after we're gone.

Good topic to support though...if you have something to gain by being politically correct.

Posted by Buzz Krieg at February 5, 2007 8:23 PM

Those who hold the view that "global warming" is caused by humans are concerned with an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere. That CO2 level would be greatly diminished if they would only stop exhaling.

Posted by Tom E. Snyder at February 5, 2007 9:04 PM

You are kidding, right?

Next time why not get an opinion on whether gravity is real?

Or perhaps if electricity can kill...

Or if a windmill can create power.

The answer to any of these is either "yes" or "no", not a matter of asking a bunch of business people if they are true. It doesn't matter what we think, only if it is true or not.

A much better question is "Are you taking global warming seriously enough to make changes to how you make or market your products?" Now that's a question asked to business people whose answers in which I'd be interested.

Whether global warming is caused by man, by cows or by sunspots, it's ultimately self correcting - in the market and in nature.

Posted by Rod Brant at February 5, 2007 10:15 PM

"If you have the time to watch Al Gore's essential movie, you will see that there is no disagreement in the scientific community that Global Warming is real and that we are causing it."

Surely that was sarcasm. Mike was kidding, right? No? Oh bother...

"such a low level of understanding"... I find it just sad that dissenting opinions on global warming are all dismissed as big-Oil funded 'misinformation', but environmentalists are never anything but truthful and honest. I think a high level of understanding would include the capacity to incorporate realities from both sides of the debate; the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, and not at either of the extremes. That's why I'm moving to CFC lighting, but a Prius will never ever find a place in my garage; I'd love to get my hands on a Tesla (all-electric) roadster, but I can't swallow "addicted to oil". I like to think I'm balanced.

Al Gore, 1997: "And the administration accepts that fact that that debate [about effect by humans] is over."
I guess if the US administration says that debate is over, debate is over. WMDs anyone?

Please don't tell me scientists are not political; politicization of science is inevitable (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/118402.html)

Posted by st4rbux at February 5, 2007 10:54 PM

John says: "And ideological claims ("they're all paid off by Big Oil") are no substitute for fact-based discourse, even if the big clock is ticking."

Are you kidding me? What do you think's been going on in the scientific community for the past 30 years? That's the whole point of scientific consensus, John. It's not like this is a new topic. You're not starting a conversation here, you're joining one that's been in progress for quite a while now.

So yes, let's engage in fact-based discourse. And let's start by evaluating the facts that scientists have been steadily collecting and analyzing for years, the information that's already available and has been for a long time. Let's start by hearing what's been said and repeated ad-infinitum, and let's evaluate it objectively rather than rejecting it as ideological ramblings of anti-oil zealots. Let's pay attention to those with expert credentials, and cast doubt on those who have dubious expertise.

I heartily encourage fact-based discourse. And as a first step, I recommend you go back and revisit this post with a touch more objectivity. Hint: consider the credibility of your references. The paragraphs are equal in size, yet the quality of sources mismatch profoundly.

How are we supposed to acheive fact-based discourse when every discussion inevitably includes equal weighting of vastly unequal data? That's hardly objective or fact-based.

Posted by Neil Mix at February 5, 2007 11:33 PM

Between the fact that the scienctific community, and now the business community are finding that the only way to arrest global warming, be it from emmissions, or worthogs, is to put a stop, or at least a slow-down to what we have done and are doing to this planet is uplifting. Albeit, 40 years to late in the making , I would rather see corporations get engaged in the same objective and work towards a similar end than the alternative.

Read Business week's cover story re: going green is increasing the bottom line.

susan frank

Posted by Susan Frank at February 6, 2007 12:07 AM

Susan, it's about time that the economic case for going green is getting airtime. That could help mitigate the concern by some in the US that putting the brakes on carbon emissions would be catastrophic for the economy. (Of course if the average global temperature rises significantly in the decades ahead that's a catastrophe of a different order.)

Neil, you aren't saying that there isn’t scientific expertise among the skeptics, are you? That would be a stretch.

Mike, I did see "An Inconvenient Truth." Twice. Compelling cinema. But the debate isn't over, especially among scientists.

St4rbux, the political logorrhea on both sides is overwhelming. Conservatives claim government/UN funding is available only for believers, while liberals claim skeptics are in the oil tank. Not useful.

Posted by John O'Leary at February 6, 2007 2:21 AM

I believe that global warming is a real threat and we have to do something about it.

Having said that, from a business perspective, given that 99% of your customer base is going to want you greener before very long (the facts are pretty much irrelevant)wouldn't it be a sound strategy to look at what your customers will be thinking in the next few years..........

Posted by PaulH at February 6, 2007 2:51 AM

Global warming is an issue, but taxing and attempting to restrict travel (which seems to be the UK's approach) is not the way forward.

The car and the plane have been two of mankinds greatest inventions. They've given people from all backgrounds the opportunity to travel; they've fostered global trade; they've helped to make the planet smaller and people more international.

At the risk of sounding like a loony, the point that many environmentalists seem to miss is that the Earth is doomed anyway. Forget meteorite impact, nuclear armageddon, bird flu or whatever: if we evade these, we can't avoid the fact that one day, the sun will start to die and then we've had it. Unless mankind has learnt to travel out of this solar system and live elsewhere, our children's children's children will inherit a sustainable environment in a doomed solar system.

So, let's think about global warming and let's take good care of this planet. But let's not do this by supressing travel and industry; let's do it by being cleaner and being smarter!

Posted by Mark JF at February 6, 2007 4:23 AM

I agree the key to success is in finding ways to make going green a commercial success. There is a heck of lot of opportunity, development and jobs out there

Posted by PaulH at February 6, 2007 6:06 AM

In your original post, John, you called for “fact-based discourse” – and I think you are absolutely right. You mention the sun spot paper as evidence that warming is due to other factors than scientists commonly talk about. Well, the IPCC report mentions the sun as one source of “radiative forcing”. (The measure of how much a particular climate change source has on the earth’s warming.) The effect of CO2 increase plus methane plus nitrous oxide is +2.30. The effect of the sun is +0.12. So not nothing – but not the main issue.

You point to a list of climate change sceptics. If you follow those through, you do get to examples of their being funded by OPEC and Exxon-Mobil. I’m not saying they are all being paid to oppose action on climate change – but some of them are. In your original post you set up the straw man – “they’re all being paid off by big oil”. They’re not – but some of them are. And many of them take positions which the greater understanding we now have as given in the IPCC report, shows to be false.

Certainly “a majority opinion is no warranty of scientific truth”. But a report like last week’s IPCC report is not just to be dismissed as the work of a few cranks just because a lot of scientists agree. And in Al Gore’s film, they looked at 928 studies on global warming. And asked which of them could be used as evidence that scientists are wrong about global warming – and NONE of them could. But (from memory) they also found that 54% of the articles you read in the media say that climate change isn’t happening.

Why would that be then? Why would that be?

It says on your bio John – that you work to help business “break the grip of belief systems that keep them from producing at the next level”. Sounds great to me!

Posted by Mike Bennett at February 6, 2007 6:40 AM

I'm not drinking the global warming kool-aid. I am skeptical that it is happening, let alone caused by carbon emissions. And, I'm getting very annoyed at those who continue to use the idea as a political and cultural stick to beat everyone else into line with. Just my two cents.

Posted by Mike at February 6, 2007 7:54 AM

Whether you believe in global warming or not, my question is, "Why not?"

Why not change to more efficient energy sources? It can't hurt to be less dependent on one source of energy. It can't hurt to be less dependent on foreign countries for oil. It can't hurt to diversify. If it helps the environment, fantastic. If it helps keep the US out of other countries' affairs, great.

Just because "It's always been this way" doesn't mean it's the right way.

There are so many small steps individuals can take that easily become habit... recycle, use flourescent bulbs, keep your tires inflated (go hybrid once it's worth it), insulate your home.

And if our government wanted to put their intentions in a positive direction, there are things it can do to help those individuals. Subsidize people who want to buy hybrid or go solar (the current subsidies are just too low for the average income - I've looked). The billions spent on Iraq, if properly invested, could have gotten us out of the oil biz (maybe the war biz?) for good.

Why not?

Posted by Gayle at February 6, 2007 7:57 AM

Good question.

But isn't the question really:
"Are you convinced that human activity is NOT causing global warming"?

In fact, as some posters have pointed out, it doesn't really matter whether it was human activity that triggered the warming. What matters is whether we can stop it.

If there is even a 2% possibility that there will be serious warming, shouldn't we be taking action?

Posted by Will at February 6, 2007 8:10 AM

When ever I read about there being "no disagreement in the scientific community," I have to laugh.

There is always disagreement in the scientific community. It's one of the great things about that austere body of professionals. They constantly debate and challenge the sacred cows, and that's why we don't still think the earth is flat, or teach "spontaneous generation," (which wasn't disproven until 1859, by Pasteur). Even Newton's immutable laws turned out to be limited after all...

Now, I'm not denying global warming, nor the human cause. I'm just denying the bully-ish assertions of complete unanimity among scientists.

And for what it's worth, the missing piece of this whole conversation is the dynamic, chaotic, vastly mysterious nature of the environment. There's so much we don't understand about the climate, how it works, what affects it, etc. There are multiple, overlapping feedback systems (plants absorbing CO2, clouds reflecting solar energy), and in the end the planet is a system far more complex than any diagram in the back of Peter Senge's Fifth Discipline book.

I enjoyed Al Gore's movie. I'd like to see us all pollute less. But I'd also like to see a little more humility about the limits of our understanding, and a little more "systems thinking" about the whole thing.

Posted by Dan Ward at February 6, 2007 9:06 AM

May I nominate two businesses that get it? Herman Miller, to my knowledge the greenest manufacturer, and the Durst Organization, building One Bryant Park in NYC as a self sustaining 55 story office building. By the way, their residential properties are marketed with a cool slogan "My apartment feels the same way about the environment as I do". Green leads to more green....$$

Posted by Mike Neiss at February 6, 2007 10:25 AM

A note on your Copernicus analogy ... It's false. When Copernicus was alive, neither he nor his opponents had the benefit of overhwelming data to test their theories. What they had were theories and scant data (when they had data at all). To compare that dynamic to the dynamic in today's "debate" about global warming is misleading. It's sad--or simply a paradox--that you do this in the same paragraph when you mention "fact-based discourse."

A second note ... When you mention "ideological claims" as something to be pilloried, you only mention the claims that stem from the left. You seem to forget the partisan attacks from the right. That's an odd lapse in objectivity in a post that claims to call for objectivity itself. And I wonder, speaking once again of facts, have you done the research to find out how many global warming skeptics are funded by oil concerns? Or have you dismissed the claim out of hand--at precisely the moment you suggest that out-of-hand dismissals are foolish?

Posted by David Garrett at February 6, 2007 10:50 AM

1. Seems main deal is to respect Mother Nature to the ends of Earth - conserve & minimize & live authentic Lovemark

2. Al Gore puts an ugly political face on it too - he is obese & even liberal USA Today had a scathing article mocking his "Green" pretensions in personal lifestyle

3. How to deal with dilemma of expanding Internet Economy though - which more and more enhances mouse "clicks" - and then products transported [fossil-fuels] to home & business - plus Chindia as incredible NEW pollution sources, trying to feed its 4 billion?

Posted by sean_ecosystem at February 6, 2007 12:04 PM

David, it is a fact that Copernicus was an astronomer - and mathematician - of his day (even if the bar for qualification was a tad lower than today) dealing scientifically with the data he had, which was hardly scant – just not as useful as the kind we have today. (I predict 500 years in the future scientists will be amused at the data we’re viewing NOW.) And Copernicus had many who preceded him in his heterodox theory – e.g. Aristarchus – though obviously a tiny minority. At any rate, Copernicus’ theory (and theory is the currency of science) was a turning point in the history of science. By the way, I did mention partisan biases from the right: “Conservatives claim government/UN funding is available only for believers.” I actually don’t have a dog in this race – though in the end all our lives will likely be affected by the outcome of it. And though I'm not pillorying ideology I maintain it doesn’t ultimately matter how much of the skeptics’ research is funded by business - just as it doesn’t matter how much of the believers’ research is funded by government - as long as we deal with the data. Some would rather focus on whether the opposing side’s point of view is even legitimate.

I salute your point, Dan, about having "a little more humility about the limits of our understanding, and a little more 'systems thinking' about the whole thing." And thanks for the tip, Maureen. Kudos to Senge and MIT.

Posted by John O'Leary at February 6, 2007 12:42 PM

I am really in a state of shock having read the comments of John O'Leary.

Take a look at a picture of the polar areas to see how much ice has been melting the last 20 years, and you will hopefully begin to understand that this is made by human beings releasing (too much) CO2.

It seems like you Americans think of yourselves as the masters of earth. You will have to understand that there are lots of people on earth who will not submit to neither Mr. Bush or any other American not understanding this serious affair.

What can you do about it?

Quoted from Gil Friend:
The options for action -- for governments, companies and, yes, each of us -- should now be clear, if they weren't already:

1. Slow and reverse any and all contributions to global warming
2. Minimize, mitigate, deal with, adapt to the daunting and inevitable impacts
3. Do #1 and 2 in ways that build economic benefit
4. Do #1, 2 and 3 in ways that build reputation

(#4 is especially pertinent for companies -- but I guarantee you it will impact politicians as well.)

Thanks to Gil. And John O'Leary, start by opening your eyes.

Posted by Roy Dahl at February 6, 2007 12:57 PM

Do I believe that humans are at least partly responsible for Global Warming? Yes.

But I find the idea that we are causing all of the Global Warming to be laughable, given the medieval warm period, and the fact that Hippos lived in Great Britain 4000 - 5000 years ago.

I look on Wikipedia, and I still don't see any consensus on what effect that heightened cloud levels will have. Which seems to be a particularly important part of the overall story - will more clouds provide a positive or negative feedback to the overall climate system.

My money, based on past instances of high CO2 levels, is that increased cloud cover provides a negative feedback, which will provide a significant dampening to warming trends. I.e. I don't believe that there's a "tipping point" anywhere in our near future, because if there was, the Earth would already be uninhabitable.

Now, having said all that, I think that there is only one rational, pro-free market way to reduce carbon emissions, and that is a blindly applied carbon tax. A "Pigovian" tax on carbon consumption will reduce them, by providing market incentives to go with other options (nuclear, renewable, etc).

No need for a "Carbon Industrial Management Board" or other socialist institutions to "control how we use our carbon." No need to mandate fuel efficiency in cars, because gas is easily moved into other uses. A simple tax. Is it the perfect answer? No, of course not. It's simply the best of a bad set of options. Best because it respects individual freedom, human ingenuity and the power of the free market. Other solutions fail on one or more of those factors.

Posted by jb at February 6, 2007 1:02 PM

John: Of course there are people with expertise amongst the skeptics. My point is that they are greatly outnumbered amongst those with expertise. It hardly seems fact-based or objective to give equal weighting to one expert versus 99 experts opposed. (Which is what your post did.)

If, as CEO of your company, you have many reliable sources indicating trouble ahead for your company and very few reliable sources predicting clear sailing, how are your shareholders going to react if you give equal weight to each camp?

Of course we should let the scientific community listen to skeptics and look for alternative explanations. But we absolutely must stop the tendency to treat both viewpoints as equally valid. The evidence clearly favors the scientific consensus. Under normal circumstances that would place the burden of proof squarely on the skeptics. Why should it be any different for global warming?

Posted by Neil Mix at February 6, 2007 2:23 PM

Question #1: right now, No. If it can be shown that the rise in CO2 is statistically significant then I'd me more inclined to listen to the global warming argument. Until then we just don't have enough data. Popular opinion several centuries ago was that the world was flat -- popularity does not make an opinion correct.

Posted by Russ N. at February 6, 2007 3:15 PM

Bjorn Lomborg puts it well (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/12/12/do1202.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/12/12/ixop.html). We need this type of balanced view. The question is not should we do something or not, but rather, what problems should we allocate social resources to solving?

From a statistical standpoint, basing worldwide predictions on the 150 years or so of somehwat reliable data seems a bit like predicting the state of the stock market one year from now based on the last 15 minutes of activity.

Posted by Eric Ralph at February 6, 2007 3:57 PM

The Feb 2 2007 release of the IPCC was a political document penned by non technical politicians summarizing a scientific report that they do not understand and making statements contrary to physical science to promote their agenda. The "science report" on which this was based will not be released until May 2007 so that the "science" can be properly edited to match the political statements. When corporations make statements and then alter the facts to fit their statements they are called ENRON. If one had to choose between following the dictates of Kyoto and spending hundreds of billions of dollars to make "carbon traders" rich but ignore real pollution problems with no hope of having any effect on climate, or ignoring Kyoto, spending that money on addressing real pollution problems and having the same effect on climate, which would be the reasonable choice? This is the REAL INCONVENIENT TRUTH.

Posted by Norm K at February 6, 2007 4:42 PM

Norm-
Spot on. I cannot say it any better and will not try.

Posted by Dave at February 6, 2007 9:41 PM

This is obviously a very important topic.

I can't help feeling that we are not going to get to the answer on this board in terms of if it is happening or not.

What I would like to kick off is what is the impact of GW (real or just public reaction to it) on business?

How are foward thinking companies going forward in this new reality

Posted by PaulH at February 7, 2007 4:04 AM

To me this series of blog comments is highly worrying. If you watch Al Gore’s film, or read the IPCC report (the consensus of 2,500 climate change scientists - and written only by scientists) or read the UK Stern Report (from the ex-Chief Economist at the World Bank) you are faced with a mountain of evidence that Climate Change is real – and that we are causing it.

What I see in these blog comments is some people who are quite happy to write off this possibility (which has very grave consequences for the planet) on very superficial or inaccurate grounds – and I suspect without having really looked into it.

It is less often mentioned but humanity and the planet face further pressures which are going to cause serious difficulties and much human misery:

* fresh water shortages
* fisheries depletion
* biodiversity and eco-system loss
* global poverty
* the arms trade
* chemical pollution
* peak oil
* nuclear weapons
* terrorism
* natural disasters are increasing
* illegal drugs
* WTO making the ground rules for trade highly unfair for the third world
* increasing gap between rich and poor

Oh and the world’s population is very likely to go up to around 12 billion by 2050.

Many (but not all) of these pressures are directly caused or made worse by the way big business operates. An old example is the cod off Newfoundland. They were fully fished out and have never come back. Business couldn’t stop until there were no fish left. Is that still the way business operates?

Business has done many great things for humanity and the world – but it seems incapable of seeing that it has also created many major problems for people and planet - and seems resolutely fixed on doing nothing about them.

Why is there no business action on Global Warming that faces up to the size of the problem?

Are we sleep-walking to disaster? Because we can’t face some Inconvenient Facts?

Posted by Mike Bennett at February 7, 2007 7:22 AM

Paul H: One way is development of new real estate. I'm not being flippant here--businesses are currently looking at ways to purchase land that has previously been ice-bound and utilize this "new" land for natural resources, agriculture, etc. That's in the north, where the ice is receding. In the south, where the ice is expanding (heresy!) this particular business opportunity is not available.

Posted by Mike at February 7, 2007 7:27 AM

Why is "2500 scientists" quoted but never any names. All of the scientists quoted are specialists in climate model simulations with a vested interest in perpetuating Kyoto because climate models are the last and only evidence that AGW has left.
Included in this 2500 scientists are those who are unable to have their protests to this fraudulent misrepresentation of science addressed and are leading the charge to get valid scientific facts to the public.
The IPCC Feb 2 SPM makes the statement: "Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas". This is based on the faulty definition for greenhouse gas in the Kyoto protocol because it excludes water vapour even though it is a very significant emission from burning fossil fuels and therefore anthropogenic.
Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas responsible for over 95% of the greenhouse effect and fully saturates all of the infrared spectral bands occupied by CO2 except for the single band centred at 4.23 micrometers. Increasing CO2 can only add to this already partially saturated band and even a quadrupling of atmospheric CO2 cannot physically raise atmospheric temperatures more than 1.5 degrees C. At the current rate of increase CO2 will be up to 480ppmv from its current concentration of 380ppmv in 50 years and a 26% increase is a far cry from a doubling. Remarkably emissions have increased at 3% per year for the last 5 years compared to 1% for the previous 5 years yet the increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2 has remained relatively constant over the entire decade showing that humans are not necessarily the dominant source for the increase in atmospheric CO2. (Natural sources are over 100 times more important)
Contrary to the rhetoric there has never been a successful computer simulation because none of the simulations could "backwards predict" previous climate and unless this can be done there is no validity to the computer model. (This is not mentioned in the IPCC SPM for obvious reasons).
If one held the Al Gore movie up to proper scientific scrutiny every premise would be shown to be invalid because of omissions of all the contradictory evidence. (A major ice age a few hundred million years ago occurred with CO2 over 100 times the current concentration)
This debate is not about science but about political arguements "cherry picking" partial and misleading scientific statements to meet an agenda and has no meaning in the physical world.

Posted by Norm K at February 7, 2007 9:09 AM

I would like to suggest that if we're going to talk about Global Warming / Climate Change, it would be a good idea to stick with the actual data, trends and timelines.

So, I must respectfully challenge Roy's comment about "Take a look at a picture of the polar areas to see how much ice has been melting the last 20 years."

I'm afraid a 20-year slice of time is far too short. We might as well look at the timeline of January through June for any given year, and be shocked that the average temperatures jumped from 30 degrees to 80 degrees. As I mentioned previously, I liked Al Gore's movie, but one thing I disliked was his series of "before and after" photos - they prove nothing, and he seemed to hold them us as uncontestable evidence.

The climate change we're talking about is actually measured in fractions of a degree over multiple decades. To be precise, we're talking about an average raise of "0.6 ± 0.2°C since the late 19th century, and 0.17°C per decade in the last 30 years." And even then, we really don't know whether or not this is in line with natural fluctuations.

This past January was unseasonably warm where I live, and this February is bitterly cold. Neither month constitutes a trend, much less a crisis.

We probably are putting too much CO2 into the atmosphere. It's probably contributing to global warming. But there's a lot more going on here than we know, and looking at a 20-year slice of time (or a pair of photos) just won't cut it.

Posted by Dan Ward at February 7, 2007 9:17 AM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16960409/site/newsweek/

1. New Feb. 12th Issue: "Inconvenient Kyoto Truths" above: a. GW 20th century = + .7 degrees C. - b. USA Senate vote: 95 - 0 Kyoto disapproval

2. Senate warned against any agreement that would require significant reductions of greenhouse-gas emissions in the United States and other developed nations without mandating "specific scheduled commitments" on the part of the 129 "developing" countries, which include China, India, Brazil and South Korea—the second, fourth, 10th and 11th largest economies.

3. Nothing Americans [&UK/EU] can do to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions will make a significant impact on the global climate ...

4. ... while every 10 days China fires up a coal-fueled generating plant big enough to power San Diego. China will construct 2,200 new coal plants by 2030. [Thank you - le merchantile fascists]

5. Meanwhile "Sean" & wealthful leisure-lvoing friends enjoy better surfing in the Pacific & reduced heating costs @ northern vacation home ...

Posted by sean_surf_is_up at February 7, 2007 10:07 AM

Hi Norm (Kalmanovitch - if it is you?). The names of the lead 50 or so scientists are on the front cover of the report. viagra pfizer from canada

You say that climate models are the last and only evidence that AGW has left. I have to say that I am impressed and worried by the evidence in their report which does not come from models. For example - 11 of the last 12 years rank amongst the 12 warmest years since 1850.

You mention the increase in water vapour - the IPCC say - "The average atmospheric water vapour content has increased since at least the 1980s over land and ocean as well as in the upper troposphere. The increase is broadly consistent with the extra water vapour that warmer air can hold." So they're saying that water produced from burning fossil fuels will only go into the air if the air has the capacity to hold more vapour. It can't accumulate like CO2.

You say that "Natural sources are over 100 times more important". The IPCC have looked at studies of CO2 levels over the last 650,000 years when the range was between 180 and 300 ppm. See Al's film for a nice graph of this. The pre-industrial level of CO2 was 280 ppm and it is now 379ppm. "The primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of CO2 since the pre-industrial age results from fossil fuel use, with land use providing another significant but smaller contribution."

Did Al Gore really get Everything Wrong?

What concerns me is that even with our current level of CO2 rises, we are getting significant effects on climate - which do have "meaning in the physical world" amd which seem to be getting worse. So I find your last sentence odd. Isn't it fair enough to be worried about this? And to want action to meet the problem?

And the final thing - which I just don't understand. Climate change, if un-addressed, could pose major problems for future generations let alone us. Why is it that so many people are determined to prove that it's not happening and that all the evidence and studies are totally missing the point. I wish it wasn't happening - I've no desire for humanity to be held back by all of this - but this report shows me at any rate that climate change is real and that we're doing it. I don't see how anyone can come to another conclusion from these facts? Or am I just totally brain-washed, misguided and the victim of junk science?

Posted by Mike Bennett at February 7, 2007 10:24 AM

What amazes me is that so many businesses would rather pretend that global warming doesn't exist than see this as an opportunity. Use some of your technical expertise and R&D funding to build a better solar cell, improve the efficiency of fluorescent bulbs, increase the gas mileage of vehicles, resurrect the electric car, etc., etc. -- and (as the makers of hybrid vehicles have learned to their advantage) people will buy them. Whether or not you "believe in global warming" is irrelevant -- unless, I suppose, you own waterfront property.

Posted by Paula at February 7, 2007 3:33 PM

get viagra overnight Hi, John. Thanks for your response to my comment. No offense, but I still see a few aporias in your argument. But that's not why I'm writing ... You wrote that that, contrary to what some of us claimed, you did mention conservative bias in your post: "By the way, I did mention partisan biases from the right: 'Conservatives claim government/UN funding is available only for believers.'" I've read and re-read your post, John, but those words about government/UN funding don't appear in it. Perhaps you're referring to something else? And perhaps, since they're not in your original post, you might see where some of your critics are coming from. In any case, thanks for the response and take care.

Posted by David Garrett at February 7, 2007 6:40 PM

I don't think it matters if the root cause of Global Warming is man made or not. That's like saying that if a forrest fire was caused by a matches, we shouldn't replant the forrest.

I think the easiest way to think about global warming is to think about global cooling. An Ice Age is the opposit of what we are facing, but it is a little clearer to settle the ethical issues.

Should we do something about a huge sheet of ice that is going to cover 3/4s of the US in the next 100 years? Such a thing would change every thing about everything. Global politics and family life would never be the same again.

Not doing what we could to stop it would be unthinkable.

The same is true for Global Warming. It is just is a little harder to understand.

Posted by Brandy at February 7, 2007 7:48 PM

As late as 1975 the world was worried about an impending ice age and the same people who want to sequester CO2 to stop our global warming intended to sprinkle soot on the polar ice caps to have the sun warm the Earth!! The next year global warming started. It was only 1/4 of a degree C cooler than now when the Ice age was still the fear.
Neither soot nor sequestering CO2 can have any effect on climate but the money wasted could have a significant effect on reducing pollution.
Providing that we are not at the end of the current warming cycle, at the current rate of temperature increase of the last decade we will be 0.7 of a degree C warmer in 50 years. If we don't do anything about pollution in 50 years we won't have clean enough air to breath or clean water to drink and soil contaminated with 50 more years worth of industrial chemicals. The 0.7 of a degree is of no concern to me but the fact that pollution is being ignored while we debate this scientifically baseless issue does bother me.

Posted by Norm at February 7, 2007 8:37 PM

I watched Al Gore's great movie again last night and read through the IPCC report - the Physical Science Basis - Summary for Policymakers. I couldn't face the Stern report as well. It's clear to me that Global Warming is happening and that we're causing it - I can't see that Norm Kalmanovitch's statement that this is a scientifically baseless issue can possibly be true.

Now in order to deal with it, individual citizens can certainly do something. But it's big business that needs to change if we're really going to win out over this.

And big business shows no sign of action. One of Al's telling slides is that US cars already cannot be sold in China because their emission levels are way too high. And that the automakers have sued California because they think it's too expensive to meet their standards. But the Californian standards are at every point way below the Chinese standards.

We need a change of heart - a seachange - from business if we are to deal with this major challenge to humanity.

And it's not just Global Warming. I agree with Norm about Pollution and I mentioned 14 major problems in my post above.

Will big business see that it is ignoring the side effects of its business activities and that these side effects are producing major problems for humanity and our beautiful planet.

I think that business is losing its credibility with many people and that could lead to sometimes catastrophic loss of business. For example, if US automakers pursue their current course, and people decide that global warming is real and they're not going to have a car (as I don't) or they want a fuel-efficient car - then the Japanese carmakers will survive - but Detroit won't. That could happen over a short period of, say, a couple of years from now.

I think that business needs to wake up to the side effects of its actions in the world and deal with them. Ethical, integral business. Business as though humanity and the planet matter!

viagra for men canada

We could do it - we could take all these problems seriously and deal with them.

But will we - will you?

Posted by Mike Bennett at February 8, 2007 4:45 AM

We don't have any model that, given the conditions of 1946, would produce the conditions of 2006. So our models so far are instructive (i.e. we can learn from them) but not predictive (i.e. we can't figure out what the climate will be in 50 years).

We know there has been both global warming and cooling well within historical times (Greenland just had its first barley harvest since 1406). But, we don't know which will actually occur based on our current models.

To me, this indicates a need for much greater research into climate, not jumping on the Global Warming (or Global Cooling) regulatory bandwagon. For all we know, mankind's current industrial activities could be the only bulwark against another Ice Age.

So, if you are looking for a place to spend money, spend it on climate research.

Posted by Mark Leighton Fisher at February 8, 2007 7:01 AM

David G, I was quoting remarks I made on Tuesday (the 11th comment on this thread) which I've been assuming were visible to everyone. (Let me know if that's not the case.) What you consider my a priori's are my attempts to not lead the witness in my set-up of the issue. But I’m seeing how impossible it is for me/us to escape assumptions in dealing with a topic like this. (More on that later.) generic viagra uk paypal

Posted by John O'Leary at February 8, 2007 9:25 AM

As long as Mike Bennett agrees with me about pollution he can discredit my knowledge of earth physics all he wants and get his views of science from alarmist movies made by politicians, an IPCC report written by 35 policy makers with no technical knowledge expressing their views of a true science report that will be published in 3 months, or the Stern report that was written by an economist based on these same "policy maker reports" and not on the actual scientific reports.
If he agrees with me about the need to fight pollution that would make me an environmentalist as well as a geophysicist and the debate should really be framed on two environmentalist views; those who believe that CO2 is driving "out of control global warming" and those who believe that global warming is a natural process driven primarily by changes in the amount of energy received from the sun. It is "CO2" environmentalists versus "solar" environmentalists.
The CO2 environmentalists say spend hundreds of billions of dollars trading carbon credits that will do nothing for the earth but will greatly improve their political and financial stature. The solar environmentalists say don't spend any of this money on carbon credits and spend it all on reducing pollution that will do something good for the Earth but will not do anything to benefit these solar environmentalists either politically or financially.
Which side would business support?
A simple clue comes from a German pilot project to produce a "zero pollution" and "zero CO2" (no, these are not the same thing) coal fired power plant. The zero pollution aspect will reduce efficiency by about 30% thereby increasing the cost of power by about 30%. The capture and sequestering of CO2 will increase the cost of power by 300%. Are the Germans more likely to accept a 30% increase in power costs if it means the elimination of a major source of pollution but does nothing to curb CO2 emissions or would they be willing to increase their power costs 10-fold so they could claim meeting Kyoto targets.

Posted by Norm K at February 8, 2007 10:41 AM buy pfizer viagra online with no prescription

Norm, I think you're saying reducing pollution is a no brainer but reducing CO2 is a different, more costly, and ultimately unnecessary measure. But if you were a policy maker looking at the problem and hearing many specialists - climatologists, geologists, etc. who are as convincing as you - say that reducing CO2 is in fact necessary, what would you do? Even if global leaders have to act on incomplete or conflicting data which may not be understood for years shouldn't we commit to the development of the appropriate (greener) technologies as a hedge against a possible catastrophe?

Posted by Mary at February 8, 2007 6:32 PM

After you watch Al's movie, read the book FALLEN ANGELS by Niven and Pournelle for a completely different take. And read the appendices for the scientific basis for their argument.

Posted by Mike at February 9, 2007 3:05 PM

As this thread winds down, the “take-away” for me is how easily we accept the evidence (perhaps more so if we’re not scientists) of that which confirms our initial assumptions. Those of us on the political left or right select the data that reinforces our point of view and all too often feel entitled to treat the opposing perspective with contempt. It becomes easy (and less stressful) to achieve a kind of cheap closure on a difficult issue and ignore potential anomalies along the way—AND attribute malign motives to those who disagree, as a way of explaining away the disagreements. Cognitive dissonance: who needs it? As Nietzche was fond of saying, “Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.”

On a personal note, as a longtime environmentalist, I used to think anthropogenic global warming was a slam-dunk—as many respondents to this thread believe—and, frankly, I wrote off skeptics as nut jobs. (Mea culpa, Norman.) But after digging into the data, I now believe that the global warming debate is NOT over (with all due respect to the Tennessean presidential aspirant whom I am proud to have voted for in 2000!). I have found the data on global warming to be RIDICULOUSLY complex and contradictory, given the “multiple, overlapping feedback systems” that Dan Ward described in a nod to the systems thinking challenges well documented by my former employer, Peter Senge. That doesn’t mean we can afford to wait until there’s incontrovertible evidence, as Mary implied, because that may not be forthcoming. The challenge for any leaders dealing with disruptive threats is deciding what to do when the stakes are high and the facts of the situation remain ambiguous.

In this case I believe more study IS required, as Mark Leighton Fisher suggested. But that doesn’t mean we have to wait to invest in green technologies, as Susan Frank and Maureen Rogers have pointed out—technologies which offer many benefits beyond reducing CO2. (I would add my hearty endorsement to Maureen’s endorsement of MIT’s S-Labs.)

generic viagra usa canada

Even if the ambition and talent are there to tackle the problem, it will take cooperation from different constituencies and political communities—which, for starters, will need to back away from the Mutually Assured Destruction school of communication—a subject for a later discussion. (Nothing the matter with a little creative abrasion though.)

Posted by John O'Leary at February 9, 2007 6:55 PM

Norm--is that the same as Scooter Libby? He was charged with obstructing justice to keep people from investigating a crime that was never committed.

John--I am all for green companies, because there is a lot of waste and pollution we need to be concerned with that has NOTHING to do with whether global warming is real or not. In fact, I work for one of the greenest companies around and our goal is to have our manufacturing plants become ZERO FILL facilities in the next few years--which means nothing goes from them to landfills--everything is recycled or reused.

There are very serious hazards allowing gov'ts or interest groups--even those with the best of intentions--to dictate to us what we can use, drive, buy, wear, live in, eat, etc. We don't work well with negative reinforcement. If you want to encourage private industry (THE ONLY group to solve the problems of the world--sorry for my heretical capitalist libertarian view) and individuals to change you have to ACTUALLY ENCOURAGE THEM, not try to frighten them with bullshit stories about polar bears and seals drowning in the Arctic Ocean. How about increased gov't funding for R&D or tax rebates for those of us who put in solar panels, etc.? Even Jimmy Carter could think of those ideas!

Posted by Mike at February 10, 2007 9:20 AM

Who the cares what the majority or minority of “scientists” think? What matters is the quality of the underlying arguments. Before the invasion of Iraq, the majority of Americans thought that they would find WMD’s. Did that make it true? 10 years ago, the majority of people thought global-warming was a joke. Did “being the majority” magically make them right?

Quoting Al Gore’s movie as evidence of global warming is like quoting Star Wars as evidence of Wookies. Remember how popular Goth became after the movies “Interview with the Vampire” and “Blade” came out? Just because thousands of people are running around pretending to be undead doesn’t mean that the number of actual vampires in the world has gone up. Similarly, just because the eco-zealots make a movie doesn’t make their arguments any better or worse than they were before.

The actual science of global warming can be divided into two sections. The first part, that the planet has been getting warmer, does not appear to be in much dispute. The second part, whether or not humanity is affecting this warming is still completely open to debate. No rational, objective individual could possibly reach a conclusion, either for or against, based on the evidence presented so far.

The key word here is “objective”. My personal theory is that most thinking people look at our modern lives and see something obscene about the whole thing. We live in absurdly large houses, drive outrageously oversized vehicles, devour grotesque amounts of food, and indulge our every whim and perversion with a flick of our credit-card. There is a growing, almost Calvinistic, belief that humanity needs to be punished for its sins. Even if human-caused global warming isn’t true, it should be true. Just like every smoker should die of cancer and every jerk who talks on his cell-phone while driving should die in a fiery car-crash, humanity should pay a price for its vulgar excesses.

This desire to see the wicked punished, or perhaps the hope that fear-mongering will return us to a more “virtuous” path, has tainted the environmental argument, turning it from science into religion. The question is whether or not this is good religion or bad religion.

The teachings of any religion can be split into two parts: the metaphysics and the morality. Morality is where the religion tells you how you should behave. The metaphysics tells you why you should behave that way.

I have no conflict of any kind with the morality of moderate environmentalists. The basic message is that one should live with moderation and thrift, avoiding needless material consumption whenever possible and seeking happiness instead from the infinite number of alternatives. It’s hard to disagree with this. You can get more happiness from learning to play a musical instrument that you could get from a hundred “ipods”.

real cheap viagra

The metaphysics is where they fall apart. “Ride the Bus or the world will be destroyed” may have a wonderful old-testament melodrama to it, but it’s hard to keep from snickering. When it starts getting too pompous, one begins to flaunt it just for the pleasure of annoying the Puritans. Whenever I do lunch with my brother the vegan, I order my steak extra-bloody just so I can watch his teeth grind.

Posted by A different John at February 11, 2007 1:09 PM

Amazing. Quite amazing.

1. It's not just a matter of computer models, folks. And of course the majority - even and overwhelming majority - isn't always right. But the physics trumps: you simply can't shift the energy balance of a system and not have the system change. Period. (See Weather or not: Risk and the physics of climate change, http://www.natlogic.com/resources/nbl/v05/n15.html.)

2. The contrarians and flat-earthers among you might also want to consider why a growing number of corporate CEOs see http://blogs.natlogic.com/friend/2007/01/this_week_in_carbon_1.html) and even Houston energy investment bankers (see http://www.natlogic.com/resources/nbl/v15/n01.htm) see compelling business reasons for moving to low carbon futures.

india canada viagra

Posted by Gil Friend at February 12, 2007 2:36 AM

it seems like no one is paying attention to earlier comments ... did the earth actually cool last year? is that significant? ... is there a difference between pollution and carbon dioxide? ... let's hear from more scientists

Posted by mark at February 13, 2007 6:23 PM

This is an interesting debate and the sampling of comments here suggest the diversity of public opinion about this subject.

Personally, I think Al Gore's film is a perfectly executed example of the old Hitler mantra from "Mein Kampf", "If you repeat a lie loudly enough and long enough people will believe it." Especially, if you spin a nice story and add in beautiful music, pictures, graphics and talking heads with long titles and lots of education.

Has anyone read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear"? I highly recommend it as a counterpoint to Al Gore's movie.

You can also read some of Crichton's speeches on his web sites. http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/index.html

Posted by Chris Jaquess at February 14, 2007 10:52 AM

Hats off to John O'Leary for being willing to question conventional wisdom.

You note that the new report claims there is now 90% certainty that man-made global warming exists. Yet many, including recently Leiberman and McCain, arrogantly claim that the "debate is over." Two absurdities strike me about this assertion:

1. they say "the debate is now over" just about every time a new report comes out. This begs the question, "I thought you said hte debate was over last time. If you now say it's over, then were you wrong last time when you made the same claim? Why should we believe you this time?"

Saying "the debate is over" is an attempt to bully / shame people into shutting up and towing the party line. No scientific debate is over until the evidence is very thoroughly, consistently verified. Global warming doesnt' even come close to meeting that standard.

2. 90% is not 100%. What kind of real scientist in his right mind would call a 10% uncertainty a reason to end debate?

The recent IPCC report was not written by scientists but by bureaucrats who present their summary of the findings that have not yet been published. This was similar to the treatment of the original Kyoto document. Many scientists subsequently claimed that the Kyoto summary report was an inaccurate representation of the scientists' actual findings.

Pro-global warming advocates claim that anti-global warming advocates are funded by oil companies. Hoards of conservatives, independents, and libertarians who ahve debunked it have no ties to oil. At the same time, what is underpublicized is the degree to which global warming advocates are funded by ideologues, BIg Government, and others with a vested interest in a global-warming-exists point of view. Many scientists who back global warming claims get their livelihood in part, directly or indirectly, for governmetn and other interests vested in substantiating global warming.

It's high time ALL bias and funding realities be exposed. But these days, only one side of the funding issue gets much air time.

A must read for anyone who really wants to hear all sides of the debate: Michael Crighton's "State Of Fear." It is loaded with research data interspersed throughout this novel.

What is most impressive is that Crighton, who is no slouch when it comes to research, set out to write a thriller which would exploit what he assumed was a real threat of global warming. But to his surprise, he found that the real story was not global warming but the intense propaganda surrounding the topic. So he decided to write the book about that instead. He had and has no other agenda other than to sell books and to advocate for real scientific inquiry. He is not particularly political.

Not surprising, however, Al Gore's book, and now movie, are getting all the attention. The questioning/challenging point of view is being largely suppressed by, among others, the major media.

It is also worth noting that Crichton helped to publicize the awful treatment by the "scientific community" against Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist. Attacks against Lomborg when well over the line of honest challenges to his assertions and into the realm of bullying. It was a shameful breach of ethics required for honest scientific inquiry.

The debate goes on. More to the point, the INQUIRY goes on. That's what real science is. It does not seek to prove a point but to allow unbiased data to speak for itself.

Posted by Carla Howell at February 14, 2007 1:31 PM

The blog that refused to die...

Carla, are you back? Running for US Senate again in 08?

Posted by John O'Leary at February 14, 2007 2:57 PM

John O'Leary asked me if I might post a comment after reading my blog on the "climate sceptics" (http://philipball.blogspot.com). But frankly, these posts are rather too overwhelming - by which I mean there's just too much here for me to respond to, unless I were to take all night. You'll see from my blog that I think the IPCC position is the most reliable we have right now. That's because I spent ten years and more as an editor of Nature dealing with those guys, and saw how cautiously they have edged towards their conclusions. There's certainly a fair bit of climate hysteria around, but it's not in the scientific community. What's interesting to me is to see that there are still intelligent people out there who want to resist the idea of anthropogenic global warming. One point that can't be repeated enough is that the evidence is not just about correlations between global mean temperature and CO2 levels - it comes from looking for the specific fingerprint of an anthropogenic effect in the regional distribution of the changes (amongst other things). It always seems telling to me that the real climate scientists rely on a great deal of sophistication and subtlety in their arguments, whereas the 'celebrity sceptics' like Michael Crichton make utterly trivial errors. The handful of scientists who remain sceptics are a mixed bag - some have some reasonable points, but it is becoming clear that others now feel too personally committed to their position to be able to gracefully accept defeat. I'd like to feel I can be fairly objective about this - gosh, I'd LOVE to be able to go on flying around the world without feeling vaguely guilty about it.
This is not to deny that there are still lots of uncertainties - but it seems to me that sensible governments should always make their decisions on the basis of the most informed opinions available, even though the very nature of science insists that those can never be regarded as absolute answers.
The economic arguments about the best response are another matter, and there is anything but consensus about that from the 'experts'. All I'd say is that it's troubling that some economists seem to feel that economics is the sole criterion on which the response should be based. Economics is an important part of the equation, but only part. And we need to recognize that economics is not really designed to help us make decisions that have as many and as drastic possible consequences as this.
Thanks for the invitation to participate (though it would be amazing if anyone ever gets this far down the comments now).

Posted by Philip Ball at February 17, 2007 3:57 PM