Skip to comments.
The Flipping Point (global warming conversion of skeptic Michael Shermer)
Scientific American ^
| June 2006
| Michael Shermer
Posted on 05/25/2006 9:02:16 AM PDT by cogitator
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 501-504 next last
Shermer has organized a conference taking place June 2-4 on climate change.
The Environmental Wars
"Why are we still debating climate change? How soon will we hit peak oil supply? When politics mix with science, what is being brewed? Join speakers from the left & the right, from the lab & the field, from industry & advocacy, as we air the ongoing debate about whether human activity is actually changing the climate of the planet.
From June 24, 2006, the Environmental Wars conference will host scientists, writers, environmentalists, and thinkers from all points along the environmental spectrum at the California Institute of Technology for questions, answers, and opinions.
Speakers list:
Special Guests: John Stossel, Michael Crichton
Speakers: Gregory Arnold, Jonathan Adler, David Baltimore, Gregory Benford, Brian Fagan, David Goodstein, Paul MacCready, Chris Mooney, Donald Prothero, Tapio Schneider
Could be fun. Crichton should have a few things to say!
1
posted on
05/25/2006 9:02:20 AM PDT
by
cogitator
To: DaveLoneRanger
2
posted on
05/25/2006 9:03:41 AM PDT
by
cogitator
To: cogitator
3
posted on
05/25/2006 9:03:46 AM PDT
by
Rocko
(Post No Bills)
To: cogitator
I have become less of a skeptic than I used to be. I think its safe to say I am on the fence at the moment. I think it would be prudent to switch to Nuclear energy as fast as possible. Dealing with nuclear waste is trivial compared to what
might have to be dealt with if the advocates are right.
Doesn't mean I dont think the greenies aren't exaggerating, but what the heck, going Nuclear is a pretty conservative cause, and it can help solve the problem of global warming, assuming there is one. Its a win/win.
4
posted on
05/25/2006 9:09:26 AM PDT
by
Paradox
(Removing all Doubt since 1998!)
To: cogitator
There is an interesting connection between the opening sentences where the author was warned and the closing ones where he now obligingly stands in line.
5
posted on
05/25/2006 9:09:49 AM PDT
by
Old Professer
(The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
To: cogitator
Oh, his epiphany at the evangelists' hands was also poignant.
6
posted on
05/25/2006 9:10:43 AM PDT
by
Old Professer
(The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
To: cogitator
"It is a matter of the Goldilocks phenomenon. In the last ice age, CO2 levels were 180 parts per million (ppm)--too cold. Between the agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution, levels rose to 280 ppm--just right. Today levels are at 380 ppm and are projected to reach 450 to 550 by the end of the century--too warm. Like a kettle of water that transforms from liquid to steam when it changes from 99 to 100 degrees Celsius, the environment itself is about to make a CO2-driven flip." Absolute bullshit. The CO2 level has been FAR HIGHER than 550 ppm, and yet global temperatures weren't signficantly higher. The dinosaurs seemed to thrive during the period.
Oh what basis is this moron deciding that 550 ppm is "too warm".
7
posted on
05/25/2006 9:11:39 AM PDT
by
Wonder Warthog
(The Hog of Steel-NRA)
To: cogitator
According to Flannery, even if we reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by 70 percent by 2050, average global temperatures will increase between two and nine degrees by 2100. ... If it and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet melt, sea levels will rise five to 10 meters, displacing half a billion inhabitants.Oh my GOD! I only have 95 years to find a new apartment!! Quickly, let's destroy the economy so that over the next 95 years, the coastline doesn't change!! That way, instead of moving half a billion people, we can just starve them to death!
8
posted on
05/25/2006 9:12:20 AM PDT
by
wizardoz
To: cogitator
The same people who believe in global warming also, for the most part, believe that we're soon going to run out of fossil fuels. So, even if it's true, it's only a temporary problem, right?
To: Paradox
There are those who have considered that general warming results in increased CO2 but no real studies that I have heard of.
10
posted on
05/25/2006 9:13:28 AM PDT
by
Old Professer
(The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
To: cogitator
Then I attended the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference in Monterey, Calif., where former vice president Al Gore delivered the single finest summation of the evidence for global warming I have ever heard, based on the recent documentary film about his work in this area, An Inconvenient Truth. Now, this is certainly evidence that proves something beyond a doubt.
11
posted on
05/25/2006 9:13:38 AM PDT
by
DrDavid
(Is this a rhetorical question?)
To: Paradox
I think it would be prudent to switch to Nuclear energy as fast as possible. So do I. Nuclear for electricity, ethanol and hybrids for vehicles.
To: cogitator
where former vice president Al Gore delivered the single finest summation of the evidenceThat's all fine and good, but did Gore cite any controlling legal authority? ;)
13
posted on
05/25/2006 9:15:04 AM PDT
by
proud American in Canada
(Come on, Gary, act! (I finally saw Team America and am still laughing))
To: cogitator
I learned (and believed) that by the 1990s overpopulation would lead to worldwide starvation and the exhaustion of key minerals, metals and oil, predictions that failed utterly. Politics polluted the science and made me an environmental skeptic. Nevertheless, data trump politics...
He should have stopped here...
14
posted on
05/25/2006 9:15:15 AM PDT
by
GOPJ
(Real trolls are brief, insulting, and at the top of threads.)
To: Wonder Warthog
He's servimg his "time out" in the local orchid grower's greenhouse where the ppm averages 1100.
15
posted on
05/25/2006 9:15:34 AM PDT
by
Old Professer
(The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
To: Old Professer
There is an interesting connection between the opening sentences where the author was warned and the closing ones where he now obligingly stands in line.Maybe he actually thought about it and means what he says.
To: Paradox
No big surprises. The problem is that the "Conservatives" have ignored the evidence so long, that they don't have much standing to point out problems with most of the proposed solutions. "Kyoto" wasn't a solution. Nuclear power is helpful.
It's been fun to watch. First the Conservatives claimed "no warming" then "warming near cities only" then "warming but due to the sun" then "it's good for you" then "oak, but so what?" The trouble is that the Left misuses science (and the Right rejects it.)
It was interesting to hear about 25 years ago from climatologist that "global warming results are only being opposed by the Religious Right."
17
posted on
05/25/2006 9:15:48 AM PDT
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: cogitator
So do I. Nuclear for electricity, ethanol and hybrids for vehicles. The electricity from Nuclear can be used to generate hydrogen if necessary as well. I don't know why this isn't a more urgent issue. We need a Nuclear Now! Campaign..
18
posted on
05/25/2006 9:16:15 AM PDT
by
Paradox
(Removing all Doubt since 1998!)
To: Wonder Warthog
Oh what basis is this moron deciding that 550 ppm is "too warm".If you read the whole thing, Brian Fagan's book and perhaps Diamond's might interest you. The basis for the 180-280 ppm window is the Vostok ice core data going back 640,000 years when CO2 was never out of that range (and it encompassed the full glacial-interglacial climate range).
Climate in prior epochs is not directly comparable to the modern (Pleistocene/Holocene) climate era.
To: cogitator
Let's admit one truth, if these predictions of doom and gloom were made to play out in our lifetime none of the crisis mongers would dare bet their own farm.
20
posted on
05/25/2006 9:18:12 AM PDT
by
Old Professer
(The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 501-504 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson