-
Website
http://danielmiessler.com/ -
Original page
http://danielmiessler.com/blog/read-this-if-you-believe-in-man-made-global-warming -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Hey Daniel.
Why "believe" in anthropocentric global warming to begin with? It's science; there's nothing really to believe or not believe. There's just a mass of evidence that suggest things to be one way or another. If this guy's assertions turn into real evidence that the current climate models are straight-up wrong, then we can recalculate, change the theory, and move on. It's not really about being right or wrong; it's about following the best hypothesis at the time.
What is Mr. Christie saying anyhow? That a few holes (of myriad) as yet to be explained invalidates most of the research out there? OK, what if they do? What does that mean? Mr. Christie seems to think that if we stopped spending all of this money on "global warming" and started building more schools in Africa that the future would suddenly be better for us?
Let me get this straight: because C02 doesn't drive climate change, that means that coal-burning electric plants and the internal combustion engines are suddenly cool again? That can't be what he means, but . . .
To what end are we arguing this? So we can stop investing in sustainable energy? Do we keep giving oil companies huge tax cuts? Because the service they provide is relevant?
Does it matter if our pollution is changing the global climate? It damn-sure alters local climates, and is just so plainly and obviously not good for us or our natural surroundings. How are C02 emissions good?
What does not believing in human-induced global warming gain us? did the problem go away? Maybe we're using different semantics, but the problem remains.
Considering how many more of us there are going to be, figuring out a way to power ourselves with perpetually renewable, non-polluting sources is the task of our time (or rather stopping the oil companies from suppressing the already existing technologies).
Maybe our pollution will cast us into another ice age; maybe we'll all fry; maybe the climate will remain stable, but we'll just slowly poison ourselves through the very food we eat.
All of this leads me to ask: Who cares what this guy says? It's not a controversy because even if it's true, it shouldn't change a damned thing except the semantics.
Again, this shows the shallowness of your intellect. To be completely convinced of something within the span of "an article" reveals shallow thought processes and a dependence on weak, shallow sources for your information. While you're sure to reply with another "I love the internet" post, check your ego for a moment (if you can) and just absorb the logic (or not).
You never put any thought or personal research into this topic. If you had, then your original choice to be "completely convinced" would not be so easily undone by a single unscientific article about what 1 scientist thinks, without even evaluating the raw data for yourself. So your choice to be completely convinced global warming is man-made is as useless to everyone as your choice to no longer be convinced.
I've observed your blog on and off for some time mainly because you've echoed some technical tidbits (unix, networking, etc) I found interesting. However, these broad brushstrokes of assumption, sweeping redirection of opinion on a topic that requires a lot more thought and consideration than the depth of that WSJ article, proves again that you are highly malleable in many of your convictions and devoid of critical thought in areas beyond what you're paid to do.
. . . Don't quit your day job.
Hi Daniel,
I was about to write something about jumping to conclusions based on scant evidence, and it wasn't going to be as scathing as exabyte's, but I'll let this one go now.
Personally, I don't believe in the human impact on global warming. It is a matter of belief, as I'm not an expert in the subject. I just heard a few things here and there and developed a theory of my own.
But darn it, I don't mind if the rest of the world believe in it. Even if it has zero impact in real life. Because the sooner people stop using fossil fuels, the better we are.
To me, every time I put gas in my car, I'm contributing to OPEC, and every time I'm contributing to OPEC I'm helping fund terrorists. If fossils fuels fall into disuse, the price per barrel drops to $2.5 and its use is mostly in the polymer industry, most of the funding for terrorism stops. I value that more than stopping the CO2 emissions, which I believe are insignificant anyway.
So stop global warming now! Reduce the carbon footprint! Yay Al Gore!
Me? An agenda?
-- Arik
(note: If you didn't get it, it's a metaphor)
@exabyte
Without re-reading my comments in the original post I'll say this: this didn't convince me that one side or another is true. What it "convinced" me of is that the situation needs to continue to be evaluated.
In other words, I've never claimed to have studied the science and I've never claimed to have personal understanding of the topic. All I have had (which I make clear in the comments) is a BELIEF based on the opinions of the leading experts in the field.
Until now I've not found any argument or opinion to be sufficient to sway me from the overall trust in what the group of IPCC scientists tentatively released. I've heard these arguments constantly but not been convinced that they had much merit given their cohesive opposition on the other side.
That's all that changed with this. As I mentioned to a friend offline, I went from a 90% to a 55%. None of these are absolutes; I'm not claiming to KNOW any of it. So I think your characterization of me swinging wildly is more a result of my poor communication skills than of my "shallow" intellect.
As for the general theme of me being too sweeping with opinions in general, I'd have to agree with that -- or, at least with how I communicate these things. I tend to be very extreme and dramatic when I'm excited about things, and this translates to my writing. I can assure you that I am quite a bit less SURE about most things than I come off as when writing.
This is a problem for me, and I'm trying to fix it.
Anyway, thanks for reading and commenting. I intend to learn from this lesson of yours (and from Arik) to control my extreme language better. And perhaps you can learn something from me about not being overtly critical to others before laying a foundation on which to do so.
Cheers.
My personal take on the situation is that it doesn't matter if it is man-made or not. It doesn't even matter if global warming is actually happening or not. The fact is it, with current science and technology, we will not know if we are experiencing "global warming" and if it is "man-made" until it is potentially too late. For the sake of humanity, why don't we try to have as minimal impact on the environment as we can?
How come it has been detected that the Sun is getting hotter?
How come other planets in our solar system have also been detected as having higher temperatures?
Shouldn't we then call it "Man Made Solar-System Warming"?
Well I think Daniel's response to my post was balanced and thoughtful - thank you.
I do not think I was being overly critical though, your statements were really shallow, but project de facto weight when one considers your thoughtful posts on technology, and so a measured response I felt was appropriate.
Exabyte.
I happen to share many of the same sentiments as exabyte, but if I had written them I perhaps would have done so in a more er...tactful way.
I just want to say that this is a strange post, given this earlier post:
"He’s also of the opinion that there is serious disagreement within the scientific community regarding global warming. I was under the impression that the only people disagreeing at this point are in denial."
There was another post somewhere (which I can't find) that says, basically, that any politician that doesn't believe in global warming shouldn't be trusted to run the nation.
Then again, there is a flaw in my reasoning. I believe his quotes all make reference to "global warming" not "man-made global warming". It is true that there is a lot of evidence to support that the earth is warming, but there are other possible reasons it can be happening (only one of which points to human activity). I'm not saying that any of these are true; I'm just providing other alternative reasons:
1) Natural climactic cycles. Technically we are still coming out of an ice age.
2) Activity on the Sun (sunspots, solar flares, etc.) affects climate on the earth, and not all of these effects are known.
3) The greenhouse effect causes radiation from the Sun (and to a small extent, from other stars) to be trapped on the earth as heat.
Everyone talks about CO2 emissions, but the fact is that CO2 makes up less than 10 percent of greenhouse gasses. The largest contributer by far (comprising something like 75%, but I'm not completely sure) is water vapor. Which doesn't surprise me, since the earth's surface is 75% water.
In case you haven't figured it out, I'm a big proponent of the "global warming is happening, but it's not caused by man" idea. That does not mean we can't do anything about it, but it does mean that we're focusing on the wrong things.
Holy cow, I didn't mean to write an essay.
While I still believe Human civilization is the leading cause of global warming I do defend Daniel's right to say whatever he likes. This is his god damn blog after all.
-Daniel I don't think you have a problem. I think other people have problems when people speak their minds. Don't change.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/GoreDontgiveequaltimeto1105.html