Skeptoid Podcast: Heating Up to Global Warming

xwiles

New Blood
X
Joined
Aug 4, 2006
Messages
1
Very good podcast Brian!

I have the same - skeptical - feelings about this global warming issue. I totally agree: as few pollutants, as possible. But I guess there is no real evidence about the causes here.

There was a similar situation here in Hungary some 16-18 years before about a planned water dam on the Danube river. I have heard famous ecologists speaking on the TV about that it must not be built as the soil water level will drop and that would cause big damages on the environment nearby. Another aurgued as it must not be built as the soil water level will be increase causing big harms... etc. No-one dared to stand there saying that we must not build the dam as we have no clue what would follow!

We do know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and could cause warming. We do not know whether the present warming is really caused by humans or even that further emissions would really cause further warmings, but based on what we already know about CO2 there are chanches that it could cause that. And that is why we should reduce the emissions.

Gabor
 
We just need to redirect more attention onto the real culprits, which aren't SUV's. It's stuff like the slash & burn emissions from the third world.
 
Would slash and burn agriculture result in an increase in atmospheric CO2? If you're cutting and burning forest and brush to plant crops, then those growing crops would take up a lot of the CO2 produced by the burning.

In the UK, there are a lot of small power stations being built to run on fast-growing crops such as willow. The CO2 released by burning one year's wood crop is taken up by the next year's growth, so there's no net increase. At least, that's the idea.

Interestingly, the ideas in this podcast tie-in with another thread I've been commenting on - The Skeptical Environementalist. The author of 'The Skeptical Environomentalist', Dr Bjorn Lomborg, also wrote "How to Spend $50 Billion to Make the World a Better Place". Basically he thinks its largely futile to tackle global warming 'head-on' as anything we do to reduce CO2 will have an insignificant effect. He argues that the huge amounts of money that are proposed to deal with CO2 (ie $50 Billion) could be better spent. I haven't read the book, so I can't comment any further.
 
I really enjoy skeptoid and is one of my favorite podcasts along with "point of inquiry". However, there has been a couple of cringeworthy moments, one on the SUV podcast, the other on the global warming podcast.

On the SUV episode Brian followed the argument that SUVs are similar to other vehicles built on the same frame. However, the big difference and the one most people overlook is weight. Vehicles with the same frame weigh considerably more in their SUV form, thus reducing mileage. Brian mentions his Audi having similar mileage to his wife SUV. Does you Audi has Quattro and is 6 cyl? The all-wheel-drive system and 6 cyl, along with other factors pushes this particular sedan fuel efficiency into SUV territory. Indeed, the numbers Brian cites in his podcast for mpg are much lower than in most 4 cyl sedans.

I don't dislike SUVs per se, but their misuse. Buying a Hummer for commuting should simply be illegal. There might be legitimate needs of space or participation in the sport of off-roading. But people should be thinking in terms of what is the most fuel efficient car that will fill your needs. Not the one you want but the one you need. I bet a prius, or a 4 cyl station wagon will work for 90% of people.

I had to make desicions like these not long ago. I live in WI and my wife works nights. Considering she might be driving at night in the middle of a blizzard we purchased a 4-cyl, Passat wagon with all-wheel-drive to sit by the prius. I enjoy luxury and really wanted the Audi equivalent, the A6. However, the Audi A6 could not be purchased at the time as a 4 cyl vehicle and had truly atrocious mileage. As an aside, we discovered an additional benefit of station wagons: the roof rack is actually functional.

The other cringeworthy moment was on the global warming debate. Mentioning Inhofe and Al Gore as equal sources was unfair. Al Gore tries to base his position in published peer reviewed articles. Inhofe has argued, on TV that global warming is a hoax by the weather channel. For me that was like comparing the national science teacher association with the Discovery institute.

I want to thank your excellent podcast. Just wanted to comment a bit on these points.

Cheers!
 
xwiles said:
I have the same - skeptical - feelings about this global warming issue. I totally agree: as few pollutants, as possible. But I guess there is no real evidence about the causes here.
Click to expand...
Assuming you are referring to the causes of GW, the part I underlined is abject nonsense of a high order.
 
I've enjoyed Skeptoid in the past, but I am sorry to say that this particular episode strikes me as downright embarrassing. IMHO, it repeatedly uses the sort of tactics and arguments I would typically expect from pseudo-scientists or ideologues.

The first argument this episode makes strikes me as specious -- namely the effective claim that since few if any of us have sat down and look through the near entirety of the evidence for global warming we can't really be sure of it. Problem is that you could make that claim for most any science! For example, how many of us have sat down and exhaustively looked through all the evidence for evolution? You haven't? Guess we can't trust it then.

If a creationist offered such argument all of us here would (rightly) dismiss it as being just a step or two away from solipsism, yet here it is in a supposed skeptical podcast. Likewise, add in a few more of the later points presented and you get something hardly different from the Intelligent Design idea that we should present the "controversy." Given the scientific consensus on GW this is a position based on a mistrust of the scientific establishment and process that borders on conspiracy theory.

Much of the rest of the podcast otherwise seems plainly disingenuous to me. On the one hand it argues that Global Warming is real and makes otherwise fair sounding points about having to come up with effective solutions. But, on the other hand it goes out of its way to heap scorn on the environmentalist movement in general and Al Gore -- every GW denier's favorite target -- in particular. It then questions whether we can do anything about it anyway, urges caution about taking action (which makes the platitude at the end about the dangers of doing nothing sound perfunctory and insincere) and harming business. Add all this together and you get what looks a lot like the classic GW Denier strawman tactic of presenting deep doubt in Global Warming (either in fact or, as the podcast does, in our ability to do anything about it) as being entirely reasonable even while dismissing the mainstream scientific view of the reality of GW as "alarmist" or "premature."

In the end you get an argument that outwardly talks of accommodation and compromise, but which in practice means doing nothing. Sorry, but I can't help but see this as a triumph of ideology over science. I am deeply disappointed.
 
Wow - Well I'm reading all you've written, and wondering if you listened to something different or if I really made that little sense. It sounds almost as if you're arguing with me by making the same points I was making. Yet you're "deeply disappointed." Oh well... :)
 
briandunning said:
Wow - Well I'm reading all you've written, and wondering if you listened to something different or if I really made that little sense. It sounds almost as if you're arguing with me by making the same points I was making. Yet you're "deeply disappointed." Oh well... :)
Click to expand...

That's just it -- you may have "made" the same points, but (IMHO) a disingenuous manner that undercut them at the same time. And, you did so in a fashion strongly consistent with typical GW denier tactics. The approach of the podcast was much like that of a host at a benefit meant to honor someone who after offering perfunctory praises goes on at length to explain that individual's numerous supposed shortcomings. One thing is said, but another is meant.

The same tactic is clear in the podcast -- grab the moral highground by agreeing that Global Warming is "real" and that something "must be done", but then ridicule environmentalists and warn about the dangers of jumping to hasty judgments. Therefore, while the message superficially sounds as if it is in close agreement with the current scientific consensus, for all real world practical purposes it really is just a reiteration of the GW denier position that nothing should be done.

The scentific consensus about the cause and possible effects of Global Warming is real. The subject is beyond questions of whether or not it is happening or if we should sit back and get yet more data before taking any action. What your podcast should have discussed was how to come up with effective strategies that best serve business and society alike. There is a lot on that point that still needs to be hashed out.
 
While I object to your assertion that I said something other than what I meant, our opinions on the matter are no so different as you describe.

To succinctly state my main point (there were several): the attention should be paid to figuring out what can practically be done that might actually produce a desired result - and that's a lot of HUGE questions. Simply taking either "side" - the GW activists' or the GW skeptics' - and considering your job done, is simplistic and ignorant.
 
Hi Brian,

But the problem is that GW activists are backed by the peer reviewed literature. GW skeptics are in fact contrarians. You portrayed both positions on equal footing when in truth they are not. This is exactly the "teach the controversy" position of the Discovery institute.

I think the true skeptic position on climate change should be: The scientific consensus is that climate change is happening and is at least in part anthropogenic. And then argue about: "what can practically be done that might actually produce a desired result".

Inhofe believes climate change is a hoax of the weather channel. Al Gore is trying to publicize the science as best he can. Not equal footing at all.
 
Last edited:
briandunning said:
To succinctly state my main point (there were several): the attention should be paid to figuring out what can practically be done that might actually produce a desired result - and that's a lot of HUGE questions. Simply taking either "side" - the GW activists' or the GW skeptics' - and considering your job done, is simplistic and ignorant.
Click to expand...

I agree, but perhaps not for the same reasons as you. Scientifically speaking the debate between GW "activitists" and "skeptics" is over -- the GW deniers lost. Therefore, if you are discussing the science there is no reason to even bring up the any GW denier talking points. My criticism is that you basically repeated a popular GW denier tactic -- "admit" that there is a "problem", but that we aren't sure why or of the costs of fixing it and thus we shouldn't take action until we do. It sounds good, but in light of the actual science is disingenuous. It's just a delaying tactic used when outright denial is no longer viable.

You also didn't help your cause by taking a number of cheap shots at environmentalists. In this instance it amounts to ad hominem and indirectly sabotages any outward claim for impartiality. This isn't a matter of adhering to some arbitrary requirement for fairness. Rather, in the context of your podcast they were conspicuous, emotionalized jabs at the group most directly associated with championing action on Global Warming. It's classic "damning with faint praise" -- even as outwardly you seem to agree the clearly understood message is that environmentalists deserve criticism and even disgust. Given the topic how can that not be interpreted as similar distrust in the reality of Global Warming and/or attempts to handle it?

Let me say that I do generally agree with and enjoy your podcast -- your remarks about classic woo such as your latest about UFOs are right on the money. But, I think you got it wrong here in a manner that was not really as skeptical as it sounded.
 
Ranillon said:
My criticism is that you basically repeated a popular GW denier tactic -- "admit" that there is a "problem", but that we aren't sure why or of the costs of fixing it and thus we shouldn't take action until we do.
Click to expand...

If you heard this, you did not listen very carefully. I cautioned AGAINST the dangers of doing exactly that! I really think you're trying to find things to disagree with. :)

You also didn't help your cause by taking a number of cheap shots at environmentalists.
Click to expand...

Is every criticism a "cheap shot"? Every one of my criticisms of the so-called "environmentalists" is well deserved.
 
briandunning said:
Is every criticism a "cheap shot"? Every one of my criticisms of the so-called "environmentalists" is well deserved.
Click to expand...

I rest my case. :rolleyes:

Given the clear distain with which you hold "so-called" environmentalists how can anyone take the sentiments of this episode of your podcast seriously? You superficially agree with ideas those same "environmentists" famously champion only to make it clear you hold them in contempt. If you heard someone proclaim that they believe in evolution only to turn around and describe the scientists in the field "immoral" and "anti-Christian" just how sincere would you think their belief really is? Why should we treat this podcast differently?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom