Episode 75 — Global Warming

[Gene Jacket 0]

I'm an idiot

[joespoe 2]

This was a difficult episode to listen to. Thanks to people who offered arguments against Yates, like denialist. I think skepticism is great, but having this one sided debate on this topic was useless. Where did Tig stand on the issue? All I heard were those annoying squeals. The only way I survived this episode was Al Gayore. PB needs to seek out better experts than a guy with a BS in Chemical Engineering to talk about climate change.

 

Sorry to be a crank.

[Brendan 96]

Not to pile on, because there were a lot of things that weren't brought up in this episode, but I figured I'd mention one: Yates said that he felt that pollution and emissions are much better than we were years ago due in part to the creation of the EPA, and that if you'd ask the EPA and the state today, they'd also say we're doing better. Assuming this is true, because it could very well be, it only seems to refer to the United States. Other nations aren't governed by our EPA, and developing nations in particular are often excempt from international emissions and pollution standards. So while the US may be doing better than we were (which is relative to begin with), there are many nations that are doing worse. I just felt this was an important omission.

 

And we do all need to keep in mind that this is a comedy podcast that riffs off of the topics presented. It's not meant to be a scientific discourse, and isn't set up that way. So things often come off as one sided and we as listeners need to consider that. I do feel that sometimes the topics get more time than they should as opposed to the comedy.

[syates59 120]

Brendan, well said. As a guest, I try, first and foremost, to let the stars shine. I am not the star. I am a guest. I try to respond with my OPINIONS when called upon in the course of this COMEDY PODCAST. (Of course there are other OPINIONS.) I love the humor most of all. TIg, Kyle, David and Aaron of super-talented, funny, witty, smart people. They are why we all listen.

 

There are vast areas of this issue that were not touched upon. I encourage all who feel passionately to visit the websites of BOTH sides. Please keep an open mind. Be skeptical to ALL claims. DO NOT ACCEPT MY WORDS AS ABSOLUTE TRUTH. They are my OPINIONS. Viva science! Viva Professor Blastoff! Amen.

[Kickpuncher 5012]

Denialist's post reminds me of another thing that bugged me that I forgot to mention yesterday. At one point, someone mentioned that temperate areas becoming too hot to inhabit could be offset by Arctic areas becoming habitable. I don't remember if they presented that as a serious solution, but they certainly didn't mention that a large-scale population migration to account for this would literally be the largest undertaking in human history. More importantly, it ignores the more significant effect of coastal areas (which are where virtually all of the world's major population centers lie) would become uninhabitable due to flooding regardless of their latitude.

 

Bottom line, it's all about risk assessment. The potential negative consequences of a 'skeptical' approach are far more dire than the potential negative consequences of an 'alarmist' approach.

[Lukas Holmes 2287]

I agree that we should be assuming worst case scenarios in terms of getting prepared for global warming. If it turns out to be nothing much to worry about, then the worst we've done is find better fuels and made cleaner air. Great problems.

 

I think one of Steven's (his name is Steve, stop calling him 'the guest', it feels like you are trying to dehumanize him) best points was about the money. The carbon footprint idea made a lot of sense to me when I first heard it, but then I heard that you were able to buy carbon credits to do bad things with, and that someone, somewhere, would offset your footprint. I get that this is, actually, a great way to try and balance the scales, but to the skeptic in me, it made it then seem that people WERE trying to monetize global warming the other direction.

 

It doesn't matter if it is true or not, once that idea floated out there, the other side had ammunition to fire. So now you have 'sides' that want profits. We already knew there were Captain Planet villains in our world screwing it up with pollution, waste, toxic rain...and we knew they would do anything to keep profits up. But now the other side (and I'm sorry to create sides) had people trying to get money as well, so the moral high ground as lost.

 

I still think the best thing is to assume global warming is real, and to fight it, just in case it is.

 

Welp, that's been me not making a lot of sense.

[indi9o82 50]

@Pongo I honestly loved the way Kyle's Al Gay-ore character said the word "isosceles". It made me laugh pretty hard.

[denialist 2]

Since there has been many mentions of sides, and the pro and anti GW-theory sides are also in general the left and right wing, I think it's useful to point something out:

 

 

On profiting through carbon credits, carbon credits are a right wing economics solution to GW.

 

The left wing solution is direct regulation, or directly taxing emissions.

 

 

 

The right wing solution (carbon credits) aims to "allow market mechanisms to drive industry in the direction of low emissions" and to avoid "government inefficiency". This solution:

 

1) creates a market (and profit incentive) for carbon credits trading 2) "internalized externalities" 3) more "efficient".

 

The profit element wasn't injected by the lefty "anti-car, anti-corporate" side but was a right wing response to environmental regulations or the prospect of high emissions taxes.

 

 

 

"...then seem that people WERE trying to monetize global warming the other direction"

 

The profit element does make pro-GW-is-real information potentially suspect.

 

--- If GW is fake the picture can be summarized as:

 

Profiteers using lefty "useful idiots" to do their PR. Allowing the profiteers to get rich from the carbon credit "compromise" solution. (Compromise between direct regulations or doing nothing).

 

--- If GW is real? The left wants to cut out the tumor. The right wants to do nothing. The left agrees to compromise: they get to cut out half the tumor but in return have to sprinkle in some bacteria (carbon credits market) while the patient is open.

 

 

If the left doesn't want to keep being painted with the right's failures they need to stop accepting right wing "compromises".

 

,,,,,,,,,

 

 

"If it turns out to be nothing much to worry about, then the worst we've done is find better fuels and made cleaner air."

 

Not necessarily.

 

Over simplified hypothetical:

 

If man made CO2 caused global warming is fake, oil may have a relatively low risk and actually be safer than nuclear. Nuclear will probably be able to out compete against solar on price, so a move away from oil could end up being a larger move towards nuclear.

 

I don't know the true risks of oil, nuclear, others. I am just making a simplified hypothetical. Basically that we may be increasing risk (to safety and livability) if we are wrong about CO2 and the safety of the replacement fuels.

 

,,,,,,,,,

 

 

And last note I called Steven Yates "the guest" because using his name felt more personal when my issue was with arguments he made during the show not with him but I can see what you're saying, point taken.

[JodyS 1]

I absolutely adore this Podcast but almost drove my car off the road listening to this episode. Presenting Climate Science as a two-sided issue of opinions was infuriating. We don't present two sides of gravity....or describe people as "believing in it" or "having an opinion" about it. There is NO ONE in the climate science community who questions what is happening....it's not a slanted or biased view or an "opinon"...it is, in fact, based on data and facts. There were so many erroneous statements made by "the guest" it really stunned me. And, to be fair, he is not a climate scientist. It's very misleading to present a guest as some sort of expert when he is not in the field being discussed. It would be a little like taking advice on cancer treatment from your podiatrist because he's a doctor. I would strongly urge you to bring in a CLIMATE SCIENTIST if you are going to do a show on global warming. (I know several, I would be happy to suggest some names!) And as to the question of "vested interests," you will find economic interests only on the denial side....the fossil fuel industry. And the reality is, we all have the same vested interest.....living on this planet and having it be inhabitable for our grandchildren's grandchildren....which seems like our responsibility.

[Blaston 1]

Not intended as a "gotcha" -- I'm sure I'm just not looking in the right place -- but I'm having a hard time finding the background for this specific Green Circle award, to assess the credibility it might lend to Steven's arguments.

 

In his Twitter profile, it's mentioned as a 2003 award.

 

On Earwolf's guest profile, it's from 2006.

 

On the Connecticut DEP Green Circle recipient page, I've yet to find it. It must be there somewhere.

 

To the larger point of Science vs "everybody says so," ultimately we layman must rely on the credibility of sources. We can read arguments and counterarguments from those sources and assess for ourselves the validity of claims and rebuttals -- but only to the extent that we have the necessary background and patience.

 

On topics with such huge economic significance, we may also "follow the money" -- and I gotta say, if the entire fossil fuel industry hasn't yet bought enough science to put this issue to rest for good, man-made* climate change must be very, very real.

 

_________

*... and woman-made.

[indi9o82 50]

Not intended as a "gotcha" -- I'm sure I'm just not looking in the right place -- but I'm having a hard time finding the background for this specific Green Circle award, to assess the credibility it might lend to Steven's arguments.

 

In his Twitter profile, it's mentioned as a 2003 award.

 

 

it says 2004 actually..

[Blaston 1]

 

it says 2004 actually..

Yeah, thanks. Not sure now if my 03 was a typo or confusion from searching different years. Either way, though, I didn't find a match. It's no doubt my mistake, but I'm still lost.

[syates59 120]

https://twitter.com/StevenEYates/status/264004996687872002/photo/1

 

Here is a link to a picture of my 2004 Green Circle Award. I do not know why it is not reported on the CT DEEP website.

[Blaston 1]

Thanks, Steven.

 

I realize all this is hardly relevant to the point of Professor Blastoff, so I'll make a concerted effort to STFU now.

[ComedyGangBang 88]

I can't believe the people in the northeast are making such a big deal of that hurricane.

 

Don't they know there is plenty of open space in Antarctica and the Yukon Territory?