09-02-2018, 06:57 AM
Coming from a perspective of a career at a national weapons lab (also not exactly a hotbed of liberals), where global warming has been taken as a given for about 30 years, I'm always a little confused as to what exactly the counter-argument is. It seems to get lost in the weeds of data variances and politics. Look, it's complicated, but in the end, simple:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This has been shown in lab tests for a hundred years. The planet Venus, which runs about 400 degrees warmer than its proximity to the sun would indicate (but has an atmosphere of mostly CO2) is exhibit B. More CO2 = higher temperatures. Not subject to debate.
2. There is more CO2 in the atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels (as measured at the station on Mauna Loa *HAWAII CONTENT*). Ergo, warmer.
The counter-arguments seem to weave between three threads:
1. It's a grand conspiracy and all scientists are lying about CO2 so that... umm, gets murky..."Q" or something. So PhDs can make $70K a year as climatologists? (Cue Dr. Evil demanding A MILLION DOLLARS) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJR1H5tf5wE.
2. Climate changes over time historically so what's the big deal? This one seems to come up when every year when the world sets a another high for hottest temperatures on record. The big deal is that while, thru advances in technology, the world somehow manages to keep yet another billion upon billion fed, that won't happen if the climate changes radically. As is (was?), conditions are pretty optimal. Billions staving = bad. Billions starving + ample nuclear weapons = very bad. Also: hurricanes, floods, pestilence, etc. It's way cheaper just to plop up some solar panels and windmills. Look, even if you think there is only a small chance of all this happening, who wants to play Russian Roulette?
3. CO2 warms things up, but not as much as scientists are projecting. This is your best bet, and should sound plausible for another decade or so. Unfortunately, it just sort of kicks the can down the road a few years. Look, even if global warming never comes to pass, we're going to run out of fossil fuels eventually. Either way, we need to find other energy sources.
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This has been shown in lab tests for a hundred years. The planet Venus, which runs about 400 degrees warmer than its proximity to the sun would indicate (but has an atmosphere of mostly CO2) is exhibit B. More CO2 = higher temperatures. Not subject to debate.
2. There is more CO2 in the atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels (as measured at the station on Mauna Loa *HAWAII CONTENT*). Ergo, warmer.
The counter-arguments seem to weave between three threads:
1. It's a grand conspiracy and all scientists are lying about CO2 so that... umm, gets murky..."Q" or something. So PhDs can make $70K a year as climatologists? (Cue Dr. Evil demanding A MILLION DOLLARS) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJR1H5tf5wE.
2. Climate changes over time historically so what's the big deal? This one seems to come up when every year when the world sets a another high for hottest temperatures on record. The big deal is that while, thru advances in technology, the world somehow manages to keep yet another billion upon billion fed, that won't happen if the climate changes radically. As is (was?), conditions are pretty optimal. Billions staving = bad. Billions starving + ample nuclear weapons = very bad. Also: hurricanes, floods, pestilence, etc. It's way cheaper just to plop up some solar panels and windmills. Look, even if you think there is only a small chance of all this happening, who wants to play Russian Roulette?
3. CO2 warms things up, but not as much as scientists are projecting. This is your best bet, and should sound plausible for another decade or so. Unfortunately, it just sort of kicks the can down the road a few years. Look, even if global warming never comes to pass, we're going to run out of fossil fuels eventually. Either way, we need to find other energy sources.