Anyone Know of a Good Book on Global Warming??

Water Cooler
#21

Relevant article.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/07/13/sunspot_cycles_won_t_cause_a_mini_ice_age_by_2030.html

#22

I think applying Pascal’s Wager to the threat of global warming is a useful exercise.

Choice 1: ignore the issue and do nothing to stop carbon emissions. If global warming isn’t real, then great, and maybe we saved some effort. If global warming is real, we’re screwed and our great grandchildren will grow up in a world very different from our own.

Choice 2: address the issue and try to curtail emissions as much as possible and investing in green energy. If global warming isn’t real, then the efforts we made led to the scaling up of green energy sources that will last for as long as humanity is on the planet. (There might be money in this.) If global warming is real, then we’re not screwed.

Seems to me Choice 2 is the smart one.

Personally, if things don’t change in the next decade or two, I think our great grandchildren will look back on the people of our time and be astounded at how selfish we were.

#23

Your suggestion is more like throwing a beautiful virgin into a volcano than Pascal’s wager.

#24

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=TAN

http://www.ishares.com/us/products/239738/ishares-global-clean-energy-etf

if global warming was a stock, i’d short it.

#25

There is a weather derivatives market, I believe.

#26

There is indeed.

#27

Yeah, ask at Enron… they know their sh*t.

Or go all out a-hole and buy some cat bonds.

#28

check again http://www.cmegroup.com/daily_bulletin/current/Section24_Weather_Futures_And_Options.pdf

#29

Agree with you on the first point–this issue is far too politicized. Nontheless, there is an objective side to this debate. Saying there is none, shows a lack of awareness about the evidence for climate change: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg

tyler, I suggest you check potholder54 channel for resources. You can start here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

#30

^ Point me to a study that was funded by a group that was not “expecting” the study to produce a certain conclusion.

#31

Why is it politicized though? I am pretty sure we all breathe the same air…

#32

It’s politicized because the people who put too many bad things in the air are making a lot of money doing it.

Sometimes I wonder where the US green energy infrastructure would be if the government had invested $2 trillion into developing that instead of, say, fighting a war in Iraq. Nobody could convince me that the NPV of the war in Iraq would be higher.

#33

there are thousands of peer-reviewed articles on the topic in which thousands of researchers toil with little remuneration. most, if not all, reveal very robus evidence for climate change.

You asked me for one article. Nature, which is one of the more well known peer-reviewed publication, has an offshoot publication that they dedicate specifically to climate change. You can find dozens of peer-reviewed articles on the topic in which researchers have no financial stake: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/index.html ;

You could also check Science issue from 2004, which is more accessible for a non-scientist. The consensus among scentists is that global warming is real: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.short

Let me make this clear. Global warming is not a scientific debate. This debate happens at the policy level.

#34

So this is why the issue is politicized? People who have financial interests in fossil fuels would deliberately misinform the public? Can’t be…

The Kochs Are Plotting A Multimillion-Dollar Assault On Electric Vehicles

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/koch-electric-vehicles_us_56c4d63ce4b0b40245c8cbf6

#35

^^ While I am 100% sure the Kochs are doing this, the article is pretty light on details. Not a fan of anonymous sources in general, someone do it on the record. Koch brothers are scum bags either way, so its not like it would shock anyone that they do this.

#36

It is interesting that in Europe it is taken as a given by virtually all politicians that climate change is real and human actions are the leading cause. Hence there is widespread agreement that political action should be taken to reduce and ultimately try to reverse the effect.

I don’t quite understand why in America it has become a politically contentious issue.

There are parallels to the early days when people began questioning whether smoking causes cancer. Tobacco industry lobby groups spent huge sums of money trying to spread confusion around the issue.

#37

^^^ Money, pseudo science.

Big Oil/Koch Industries can pay politicians on the right (and Dems from oil states) to drum up the old Left vs. Right fight anytime they want. Once you get a couple fox news talking heads bringing up some “research” that was funded by oil companies saying climate change isnt real and even if it is it is not man made, their fan base is very impressionable and believes whatever they say.

Special interest on both sides know exactly how to frame an issue to turn something pretty straight forward into a wedge issue.

#38

I think one of the major points is what it would cost to try to change the current climate course and whether it even matters. Climate is always changing and we’re at a relatively cooler period of history so it’s not seen as a big deal if temperatures rise - even if caused by industry. What’s the tradeoff? Industry has provided civilization with so much, why restrict it in an attempt to decrease temperatures by some fractional degrees? Especially when we’re not at a point where wind or solar energy are anywhere close to as efficient as fossil fuels. Plus, the sheer amount of land it would take to install solar panels or wind turbines to power the country is not feasible.

My main curiosity is why nuclear energy never gets brought up in any of these discussions. All I ever hear about is wind, solar, biofuels, and such. Is everyone really that scared of another Chernobyl?

#39

^I think nuclear energy is great and unfairly vilified. But yes, to answer your question, everybody is scared of another Chernobyl. Outside of emerging markets I don’t think NE has much of a future.

Why restrict industry? What do you think? Because rising temperatures and changing climate has serious adverse effects on people? Is that really so hard to grasp?

Not true.

#40

More than 80% of electricity generated in Europe comes from hydro, nuclear, or wind. 66% of electricity generated in the US comes from coal or natural gas.

It’s pretty easy to agree that global climate change is caused by human actions when changing those actions doesn’t really affect your ability to charge your cell phone or threaten jobs in a significant portion of your economy.