barrons

MIT prof says not so much.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/

VectorWega

And if he's wrong? Oops.

Regardless of the truth, which may lie somewhere inbetween, the fact is that the US has fallen way behind other developed countries in regards to it's pollution/emmisions policy.

The energy companies and automobile companies and others need to be held to a higher standard than they currently are. That should happen regardless of global warming. Will it happen though? That depends on whether or not the people's will is stronger than the companies' lobbyists (probably not).

Hopefully, oil prices will continue to rise so that people choose to live closer to their work and mass transit will become more economically feasible in the US (it is **** poor in many major cities). This would certainly improve the situation.

emeraldkity4

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/07/sc...th&oref=slogin


Guess they are barking up the wrong tree?

kluge

The problem is that the science behind the theories is difficult - the data is immense, the "model" is global, and the scientific/mathematical underpinnings of the whole is beyond most of our grasps. Since it's science, there will always be disagreements, and some scientists who take the opposing viewpoint. (That's what makes science fun.) But the end result is that people who lack the training and time to do the math ourselves (that's essentially all of us) end up choosing which side we're on based on extremely unscientific criteria - like our political views.

I don't know personally which side is right. I do know that most qualified scientists side with the bad-climate-change-due-to-human-activity camp, and if they're right, my kids are facing some unpleasant options during their lifetimes. That's enough for me to choose which side to support, at least for now.

ldmom06

^and then there is the side that cites the natural phenomena of the Medievel Warming Period and the Little Ice Age which occurred over a period of time beginning with Dark Ages and ending in the mid 19th century, well before global industrialization. Many ideas for the causes of those occurrences including volcanoes and The Black Death (tree overgrowth of abandoned farmland).

edad

In spite of Al Gore and all of the alarmists, it is looking very likely that global warming (and the ice ages) are related to changes in solar radiation. You don't need to be a scientist to realize that major climates changes centuries ago were not caused by burning fossil fuels.

ucsd_ucla_dad

They're only delivering what people want. Why blame the auto companies? If you want to blame someone, blame someone who purchased a vehicle that gets worse mileage than you think is appropriate. What's appropriate? The GW (that's global warming) camp usually think it's anyone driving a vehicle they perceive gets worse mileage than their own vehicle. Of course that camp could usually buy a more efficient car themselves or better yet, a motorcycle, or better yet, a bicycle or walk but instead they generally use themselves as the benchmark.

kluge

Well, again with the caveat that, unlike some, I don't presume to understand the science behind the climate change theory being supported by most scientists who are qualified to have an educated opinion ---- I know there have been ice ages, etc. in the past. I don't know what caused them. I can understand that various different things might trigger climate changes at different times. I know that the ice ages were not pleasant for living things present at the time. If we're doing something that would trigger a significant change in the climate which wouldn't happen otherwise and it's due to our decisions about how to live our lives now my children and grandchildren will suffer from our actions (or inactivity.) And you do need to be a scientist to figure out if we're doing exactly that.

u-u-dad, the derisive "if 'that camp' isn't perfect in their behavior I can ignore everything they say and be smug" argument has no more validity with regard to environmentalists than it has with priests and secretly gay fundamentalist preachers. Makes you feel good, I know, but it's intellectually vacuous. The fact that the preacher is a sinner doesn't mean the Word is wrong.

BedHead

Well, since you cited this article, this professor doesn't dispute whether or not global warming is being brought about by humans, only what the magnitude of changes will be and what level of impact they will have on the planet and human society. These are the big questions that are still open; it is not, as edad implies, that it is all related to solar radiation changes. For the vast majority of scientists human-related global warming is not in question.

renix

I think our masochistic tendencies are showing. For the record, I have a geology prof. who is one that doesn't buy it.

A: http://www.friendsofscience.org/documents/deFreitas.pdf

B:
http://video.google.com/googleplayer...99458831&hl=en

ucsd_ucla_dad

kluge:

I'm not debating the theories one way or the other in my statement - only addressing the smug attitude of the 'camp' that seems to accompany discussion on this topic when it invariably boils down to 'those darn SUVs'. I also have a problem with blaming the auto companies when they're only delivering what people want. Maybe you should read the statements more closely.

ldmom06

I'm interested to know how many posters here who feel strongly about carbon emissions and global warming have bought or intend to buy carbon credits.

(Don't get me started on what I actually think of THIS particular cottage industry...I'm a retired auditor and when I see nonprofits spending less than 20% on program expenditures...well it's like waving a red flag in front of a bull... )

razorsharp

Any bets on how long it will be before the MIT Prof. goes the way of Larry Summer (i.e. out the door)?

edad

Larry Summer was removed as the President of Harvard because he asserted that women are inferior and not able to function well in the sciences. In addition to being politically incorrect, his remarks do not agree with the success demonstrated by the large number of women scientists, nor did they match the goals of education for half of the student population at Harvard. Tenure protects faculty members, not administrators, who hold unpopular beliefs. Tenure has been a valuable policy because the consensus is often wrong and innovation and new knowledge require someone who looks at the alternatives.

rorosen

I always wonder about the earth's molten core. What is the effect of all that contained heat?