90% Confident That Global Warming Is Happening

« Measuring The Blogs | Main | Why Embed Code Matters »

90% Confident That Global Warming Is Happening

To all those people who leave comments with an attitude on this blog anytime I mention global warming, I hope they read this report with an open mind.

This is not "I told you so". All I want is for everyone to take their heads out of the sand. I don't want to get political about this stuff because as my friend Steve often points out when I blog about global warming, a populist driven political response to global warming could make things even worse.

Comments (48) | Posted February 3, 2007 in Venture Capital and Technology

Comments

You're right. Now, it's not about whether there's global warming, it's about what each industry, company, and individual can do to minimize costs and live with a lighter footprint.

Posted by: Preston | Feb 3, 2007 10:36:52 AM

In my mind there is no doubt global warming is real. The question is, are we the cause or is it natural? It is probably a little of both. How much are we contributing and how much can we mitigate impacts?

Posted by: Chris | Feb 3, 2007 10:49:05 AM

In other news, bettors are 70% confident that the Indianapolis Colts will win the Super Bowl this weekend.

"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

Posted by: Rockwell | Feb 3, 2007 10:51:35 AM

putting aside the debate about whether man has or is causing global warming (i come down on the not side. but there is not enough space nor I suspect interest in the analysis discipline used in these models) my fascination is with the theological aspect of global warming. yes that is what i said - Theological.

The Global Warming movement is the first secular 21st century religion. As an atheist and an anti-theist, the global warming folks and their 1st pope - Algore the pious, make me as nervous as when the jehovah's witnesses knock on my door. I cannot count how many times people (GW disciples) have said to me, "you mean you don't believe that man causes global warming?" Believe? Scientific analysis is not a belief system based on faith. when they trot out (if they do) whatever "model" that purports to prove their "belief" and you then point out the statistical faults in said model,the response goes like this - "well that may be true but what if you're wrong?" for an atheist this sounds to much like, "have you accepted Jesus or Mohammed as your lord and saviour?" When you say no and counter that their is no God, nor heaven and hell because science says so. they say that could be true but what if you are wrong?

the other one i like is a majority or "consensus" of scientists says that this is the case - ok, at one time a consensus of the scientists thought the sun revolved around the earth and folks like galileo were jailed for being "deniers" by the church and their scientific majority.

The capper for me and the true sign that GW has morphed from a scientific debate to a religious one waking up and finding company's like TerraPass in existence. where you can go and work off that recent family trip to Vail by sending them a bunch of dollars which will be invested (no doubt!) in a project which supports renewable energy, thereby lowering your footprint and making you feel better. Calling Martin Luther, Martin Luther!?! I think these were what the Roman Church called indulgences.

to summarize - I have an open mind - to analysis based upon as much data as is possible. i don't like "pic & mix" science. The debate is being shut down from multiple sides and it comes down to, as all things do, power and money.

Posted by: ming666 | Feb 3, 2007 11:08:50 AM

A good article on the subject:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117046745431497018.html

The bottom line with global warming is that we don't know, and even if we take the claims of global warming believers to be accurate, the costs of their proposed policy prescriptions (like Kyoto) far outweigh the benefits.

One thing we do know: buying a Prius makes absolutely no difference, except to the sense of self-satisfaction of the owner.

Posted by: Rockwell | Feb 3, 2007 11:38:23 AM

http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

Posted by: Rockwell | Feb 3, 2007 11:43:22 AM

not sure i understand your point - is commenting with "an attitude" a good or a bad thing?

how about blogging?

Posted by: steve | Feb 3, 2007 1:11:02 PM

Scientists have had total certainty and consensus about the earth being flat and the sun revolving around the earth. Consensus is meaningless, look at the scientific data and the proof of anthropogenic global warming is tenuous at best.

Let's just look at a history of eco-scares:
60's: DDT (banning DDT kill 2M people a year)

70'S: Global Cooling (true)

80's: Acid Rain: remember how it was going to lead to deforestation?

90's: We needed to put MTBEs in the gas...ooops it leaches into the water table causing cancer and other problems

00's: Global warming

Consider these facts:
* It was warmer during the Middle Age Warm Period

* Water vapor is a greenhouse gas and in fact, clouds account for 90% of all greenhouse gases, so at most, man is responsible for 10% only!

* We have had at least 6 ice ages, all subsequently melted before we have industrialized, what caused the melting? (hint: sun activity correlates to climatic change)

* The Krakatoa volcano errupted in the late 1800's and spewed more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than all combustion engines since the invention of the combustion engine.

If you look beyond the alarmist headlines of the NYTimes, you'll see that just as the sun is at the center of the universe it is also at the center of this pesky global warming trend...that occurs every 1,500 years

See: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/11-09-2006/0004471126&EDATE=

Posted by: Mike | Feb 3, 2007 1:12:20 PM

Boy o boy. Nothing like climate change to bring out the pseudo science.

Any given individual's opinion on this topic is driven by where you live. For example, I can assure "Mike" that de-forestation in Europe was very, very real in the '80's. You can still see the effects of it today.

Furthermore, the idea that being "green" is somehow going to destroy the economy is flat out wrong. I heard a very good argument just the other day that if the US took a leadership position, it could help drive down our trade deficit e.g. selling clean coal technology to China.

As someone that lives in the US I personally find it embarassing that China has higher auto-emissions standards than the US.

Two thoughts, both simple:

1) Imagine a 1 gallon bucket of water. Now pee in it. You pee a little, not much changes. You pee a lot, and you get a bucket of pee.

My point is that the Earth as a whole is a pretty closed system. you keep producing and dumping crap into it, sooner or later you have to reach a point where it becomes polluted. Regardless of whether global warming is real, it is clearly and simply a bad idea to keep dumping crap into the environment.

2) In the US, I think we're somewhat more protected from the physical effects. I have relatives in the UK. How many of you know that there have been TORNADOS in the UK?? Several this year in fact. That has never happened in the 2000+ years that records have been kept.

Things are changing. The US and US businesses could make an enormous amount of money by just accepting this and putting good old fashioned entrepreneurial know-how into fixing the problem.

Regardless of whether global warming is real, would it really be that bad to live in a country that doesn't have smog, polluted water tables etc? I for one don't think so...

Posted by: fewquid | Feb 3, 2007 1:46:47 PM

to mike's point. i lived through the 60's and 70's. Paul Erlich and his ilk were all the rage. back then it was pollution, ice age, nd population explosion. lets all remember the Erlich - Simon wager on 20 year commodity prices. one last thing:

Soylent Green is People!

Posted by: ming666 | Feb 3, 2007 2:26:25 PM

if only those who have discovered the massive hoax of modern science would devote their efforts to even more pressing issues - like discrediting cancer science, or fluoridation in water. surely vaccinations are some sort of conspiracy by money-grubbing scientists.

for those who choose to believe scientists when they come to a consensus on an extremely complex issue, it may interest you to know that the single most important thing you can do to fight global warming is to go vegetarian. a recent UN report found that the livestock industry accounts for 18 percent of human-induced greenhouse gases (more than cars!), and a university of chicago study concluded that switching from a typical american diet to a vegetarian diet reduces your contribution to global warming more than if you switched from a regular car to a hybrid. not to mention all the other environmental damage done by the meat industry, or the horrific suffering of the animals.

even the anti-science crowd should have a hard time with this one - going vegetarian doesn't cost our society a penny, it's good for your health, and it would reduce the amount pesticides and pig shit in our water. then again, maybe the idea that ingesting huge amounts of petrochemicals is bad for us is some sort science hoax.

Posted by: jake | Feb 3, 2007 3:11:42 PM

jake:

in science there is no such thing as consensus. either it is or is not or it is hypothesis and theory.

Posted by: ming666 | Feb 3, 2007 5:36:57 PM

Is there Global Warming? Yes.

Is it humans causing it? Maybe, maybe not.

Would the world be better if we weren't pumping all the crap we are into the air? Of course, so let's do something about it regardless of global warming.

Posted by: Doug Karr | Feb 3, 2007 6:55:10 PM

btw are you implying that 10% of you doubts global warming? statistically insigificant - but if it makes you feel better (and isn't that whats most important?) then so be it.

is that too much attitude?

Posted by: ming666 | Feb 3, 2007 7:06:49 PM

Global warming is real... It's the cause that's in question (as already stated). Both sides have equally compelling arguments, so I'm not going to touch this subject.

Posted by: Robert Dewey | Feb 3, 2007 10:00:12 PM

Of course its real. There was a glacier right where I am sitting 10k years ago, so it had to have been colder then.

Hopefully we can get temperature data from Mars and see if the giant nuclear reactor that is the sun has minor output fluctuations, or if its all just due to my Tahoe like the socialist....er environmentalists...want us to believe.

Either way, using less, polluting less and being more friendly to the environment should be a priority for all of us--just as it has been for 150 years to the farming families that have given us much of what we have today...

Posted by: Andy | Feb 3, 2007 11:29:40 PM

Ming 666: "in science there is no such thing as consensus. either it is or is not or it is hypothesis and theory"

You are absolutely incorrect here. Almost _ALL_ science and our understanding of the universe as a whole is based on hypothesis and theory. The point is that as a scientist, you come up with a hypothesis AND THEN YOU TEST IT.

A good theory makes testable predictions. If evidence consistently fits the predictions of a theory then it is deemed a good model and becomes generally accepted.

Very little scientific knowledge is absolute, but as our knowledge increases the models get better at describing what we see.

Newtownian physics is a great model. But it's only a model. It's also wrong, but you don't see the model break down until you start traveling really fast or becoming really really heavy. Einstein's General Relativity is, in some ways, a more accurate model. Is it "right"? I doubt it.

Science is not black and white and it never will be.

All that being said, several different climate models show that the kind of pollution humans are causing is very likely to change the face of the planet.

They might be wrong too.

But like I said previously, would it really be so bad to live on a less polluted planet?

But forget pollution and the chance global warming is real. Look at it this way (and I'm borrowing from Governor Mark Warner
here): Oil. The USA imports a HUGE percentage of the oil we use. I forget the number, but it's well above 50%. The vast majority of the jobs created by our use of oil are created at (or near) the site the oil comes from i.e. not in the USA. Imagine we switch to ethanol, bio-diesel, diesel from coal, or whatever, but some kind of fuel that is made here, in the USA. Now ALL of the jobs related to our energy consumption are HERE. Doesn't that sound like a good thing???

Sure, Exxon might have to trim their $25 BILLION in profit and stop paying random "scientists" $10k to discredit the UN report, but otherwise I for one think we'd be a lot better off.

Posted by: fewquid | Feb 3, 2007 11:39:17 PM

There is ZERO science behind the religion of global warming. Global warming is simply the leftist equivielent of creationism -- all they have is their ever shriller insistance that it is real.

Reality is, right now, the earth is getting cooler and its been doing so for the last 7 years. How can this be if Global warming is real?

Fact of the matter is, in the short term, the planet is getting cooler... in the long term the planet is getting warmer-- but only if you go back to the last ice age, and if you do that, you see that it has been happening before any of the industrial processes that leftists want to blame came into widespread use, or even were invented. Maybe we've reached the tipping point as recent data indicates and the planet is now going in its normal progression to an ice age.

Further, even that UN propaganda piece-- the report you reference in your blog post, which, by the way does not prove what you think it does-- have you even read it? --- even that report says that global warming is a non-threat. 30 inches of increased sea level in 100 years? Tides go 8 feet in a given DAY. Zero real effect, and zero threat.

Global warming is a religion--- as is easily proven by the fact that no amount of science will dissuade its proponents. And the proponents have no science to back up their claims.

Only hype, misinformation any hysteria.

Anybody who claims to be a man of science and who makes the claim that global warming is happening is someone who is not trustworthy, because they have made a claim that is obviously false.

Further, the agenda behind the global warming hoax is obvious-- to remove industrialization and to impovrish and murder millions of humans. This is the requirement of socialism-- so the the few socialist elites can live in luxury, the rest of hte world should be destroyed. Global Warming's goal is to try and scare normally rational people into signing their own death warrent.

If you believe in global warming, you *know* you are not embracing science, and you *know* the reason you want to believe in it is a leftist agenda. Well, leftism has killed more people in the last 100 years than any other ideology.

100 million dead so far. How many will be enough?

Posted by: Jay | Feb 4, 2007 1:20:56 AM

Bad news: global warming is really happening, and we humans are most likely to blame for a large part of it

Good news: it's a self correcting problem. You see, most of the climate models that predict dire consequences are based on a false assumption that the rate of carbon release will either continue to grow or at least hold steady. Unfortunately for all of us, this assumption is false.

The reason it's false is that there are not enough known deposits of hydrocarbons to support this rate of release. If we can actually extract and burn every barrell of oil from the ground, we'll still run out of oil way before the temperature moves into the danger zone. This is the basic tenet of the Peak Oil theory. The evidence is clear, that a time will come when no matter how hard we try one day soon we will be able to extract less oil from the ground than the year before.

Make no mistake, Peak Oil is coming. If not this decade, then the next one. If not the 'tens, then the 'twenties. It doesn't matter when. It's coming. And when it does, global warming, real or not, antropogenic or not will be the least of our problems.

Snap quiz: tomorrow, gasoline prices reach $100/g. What are you going to do?

We, as a civilization, can choose one of two paths past Peak Oil: through war and self-destruction descend into the resource-limited hell that was the Middle Ages; or, lift our eyes up into the heavens and realize that there, but for the taking, are all the resources we need in quantities often too vast to comprehend.

We just have to be bold enough to reach out for them.

Posted by: ben reytblat | Feb 4, 2007 1:32:31 AM

Arggghhh - if bright guys like you and others posting here don't even understand that you've misquoted what IPCC's "90%" meant it's no wonder we are about to squander perhaps a trillion in lost GDP failing to solve this problem.

1) Global warming is happening - that's not in dispute in responsible scientific circles. Pretending this is the issue is the straw man of the debate.

2) The 90% is the likelihood humans are the main cause of the warming. This is also not responsibly disputed except by a handful of scientists among thousands who accept this. It was considered "likely" before and the new report says it is "very likely". We should accept the IPCC conclusions here.

3) What is responsibly disputed is whether we should forego trillions in lost GDP in efforts to reduce warming. I suggest it's probably more responsible - in fact morally imperative - to first solve current catastrophes such as 3rd world health and hunger. These are cheap and easy fixes, where most GW alleviation schemes are expensive and problematic. Sure, do the cheap stuff for GW, but spend the big money where it'll do the most good.

Posted by: Joe Duck | Feb 4, 2007 1:54:01 AM

1) Global warming is happening - that's not in dispute in responsible scientific circles. Pretending this is the issue is the straw man of the debate.

Posted by: Joe Duck | Feb 4, 2007 1:56:49 AM

Look folks, this is not about Global Warming.

Regardless of your political affiliation, agenda or whatever, regardless of whether you feel warmer or cooler, we're messing up with the Earth, and we need to be more considerate with our planet. At all levels. And that's it.

Those who go "yeah, global warming is real" shoud simply say "It's not about GW. We're messing up with the Earth, and it doesn't hurt trying to take a bit more care of it".

Similarly, those who go "global warming is crap" should say... exactly the same thing! "We're messing up with the Earth, and it doesn't hurt trying to take a bit more care of it".

End of story. Now you all can go back to debate whether GW is happening or not.

Posted by: RBA | Feb 4, 2007 3:30:53 AM

the "caring" part is a nice sentiment. this would be better framed as a national security argument - that it is in the US best interest to achieve some level 30%, 40%, 50% energy independence within 5 years, 10 years, etc. This drives investment and product and ultimately we get a smaller carbon footprint and then we can argue over who was right and who was wrong. in the meantime i will continue to be sceptical over the motivation of the high priests & priestesses of the GW movement. as i have said before this is all about money and power (as most things are) pro-gw scientists know that grant money is the mother's milk of their business - and today it is slanted towards pro-gw positions. also the big kahuna will be some type of kyoto style carbon futures trading system. if you thought the UN oil for food scandal was big wait to you see this one.

Posted by: ming666 | Feb 4, 2007 4:49:06 AM

A poem:

'If the earth were only a few feet in diameter, floating a few feet above a field somewhere, people would come from everywhere to marvel at it.

People would walk round it, marveling at its big pools of water, its little pools and the water flowing between the pools. People would marvel at the bumps on it, and the holes in it, and at the very thin layer of gas surrounding it and the water suspended in the gas.

The people would marvel at all the creatures walking around the surface of the ball and at the creatures in the water. The people would declare it as sacred because it was the only one, and they would protect it so that it would not be hurt.

The ball would be the greatest wonder known, and the people would come to pray to it, to be healed, to gain knowledge, to know beauty and to wonder how it could be. People would love it, and defend it with their lives, because they would somehow know that their lives, their own roundness, could be nothing without it.

If the world were only a few feet in diameter.

by Joe Carter'

The shameful reality is that we waste precious resources with at best ignorance and at worst sociopathic tendency.

When Ghandi landed in the UK for a visit many years ago he was asked 'What do you think of Western Civilisation' to which he presciently and insightfully replied: I think it is a marvellous idea.

Anyone who feels smug about how advanced and special we are needs psychiatric help.

Have a nice day.

Cheers

Posted by: Al | Feb 4, 2007 5:09:38 AM

Current Temperature here in Detroit 9 Degrees.
Without global warming, perhaps 8.5 Degress.

Posted by: Hockeydino | Feb 4, 2007 9:57:11 AM

A VC

Musings of a VC in NYC