The Insurance Tech Guru

Ara,

It is good to see someone in your position advocating a "time-out" on this matter of so-called anthopomorphic global warming, or climate change, which is what the Gore/Hansen types decided to call it when it became clear we are looking at perhaps a 20 year cooling period--also manmade.

We might all agree that ethanol was a boondoggle. Your method would require some objective thought to be injected into the process, along with the sort of detailed analysis that would prevent ethanol-like "solutions" to what may or may not be a "problem" going forward.

Of course, whoever wins the election will be anything but objective--so the meteorologists he picks will be presumed to be biased--and the debate will rage on.

So, Ara, it's up to people like you to continue calling for reason. Americans deserve better than what they are getting from their government and the scientists it is funding--like the dubious Jim "the debate is over" Hanson.

I like the "debate team" approach, but may I suggest some ground rules, and a paramutual angle.

First, let's ask leading proponants on each side of the issue to name scientists outside their field whom both sides acknowledge have demonstrated good scientific judgement and personal integrity. Find ten names that appear on both sides' lists. They'll be the jury. Let each side appoint a three person team who will present research and witnesses for their side, and who will cross-examine the other side's witnesses.

Let the two sides agree on the precise question to be presented to the jury. Perhaps something along the lines of "Resolved: sufficient evidence exists that human activity has probably altered the pace or direction of climatological change, and will cause profound climate change within the next fifty years."

Except for the jury, every participant in the jury-naming and team-selection process has to put up $10K of his/her own money in a winner take all bet. Las Vegas betting parlors will then manage outsider bets on whether the jury will find in favor or against proponants of global warming. Let no man or woman on earth be allowed to express any opinion on global warming until s/he has first provided proof s/he has bet at least one month's gross income on the outcome of the jury. The jury and betting parlors each keep 10% of the amounts bet as their compensation for participating.

This process has half a chance of returning a well-reasoned answer, and, more importantly, should reduce the self-serving political commentary screeched from each side. For that reason alone, I urge "Let the games begin!!"

Have we entered into the theatre of the absurd?

Debating is for politicians. Rather than go to the elaborate lengths that are being proposed here, why not just start cleaning up the planet?

What is the downside to creating true alternative energy sources (not corn based ethanol which was motivated by greed and political expediency)? There is sufficient demand for oil globally, so EXXON will not get hurt. Energy needs will increase, so we only benefit from alternative energy sources. A cleaner planet hurts no one and reduced oil consumption preserves more for the future.

Let's stop the drama and get to work. Debating this at this point is moot.

The oil companies have sufficient money now that they could get rich off of alternative fuels as well if they have the courage to invest in those options.

If this was all as simple as just deciding to "clean up the planet," we would have very little opposition. Unfortunately, global warming has turned into a zombie-like mantra that has governments spending billions of dollars to avert events that we are not at all certain will occur in the distant future.

There is also plenty of reason to think that factors other than industrial emissions (or cow emissions) may be responsible for what could be a warming trend (solar weather is one factor for which scientists cannot fully account). Nor is is perfectly clear that reducing man-made carbon emissions will have any significant effect on climate, even if the Earth is growing warmer.

What is being sought is not a debate, but simply a reasoned presentation by both sides so that those in power can make what we all hope will be reasonable decisions.

I have to say I find the idea of this debate a little silly and theatrical. Who is it supposed to convince and of what? While the mainstream media may have overblown the scope and severity of this issue, as indeed they did with killer bees and Saddam's non-existant WMD's, is any serious person of the opinion that these histrionics exist within the established scientific literature?

The references to Al Gore strike me as quite naive and frankly petty; Al Gore is not a climatologist, and the internet invention cheap shot is dismissed with a quick visit to Snopes that I know you have been pointed to before. His role is to drum up public support. And if the debate is supposed to be a balance, or present an alternative to his approach, it seems it's really trying to convince the masses of something they already believe is true or firmly disagree with - not policy makers who should seek scientific advisors that are competent to, well, advise on the matter.

Ara, you seem pretty adamant that man-made global warming is bunk despite having, presumably, no degrees in any related scientific discipline. Would the outcome of any televised debate really sway you in the opposite direction? Every scienitific organization even peripherally entitled to register an opinion on this issue has already weighed in and said they agree with the majority of the IPCC report you dismiss. There is dissension to be sure, at varying degrees, but these are a small minority of scientists and an even smaller minority of credible top scientists in the field. For every Univeristy of Colorado professor who says Global man-made Warming is a myth, there are a dozen from MIT, Harvard, etc. who disagree.

Of course, the majority opinion can be wrong. A panel of top physicists convened in 1908 would probably agree that Newtonian mechanics were always accurate and the idea of a constant speed of light was silly. So, the opinion of the whole can shift, but if one is not an expert in the relevant field, or a genius, it is difficult to do anything but take the opinion of the majority of highly intelligent and knowledgeable experts. This is what I do when I need guidance on say underwriting issues, try and listen to the experts. It's not a fool-proof plan, but it seems to me accepting the science of the fringe minority because it suits your personal politics is dangerous.

It all smacks of the "evolution trial" the Kansas school board had a few years ago, where the evangelical republican school board members weighed evidence from the intelligent design camp and a handful of scientists who actually stooped low enough to engage these people in their asinine inquest. As I recall some of the board members, key christian votes, didn't even read the primer prepared by the evolutionary biologists. Their minds were made up based on their politics.

It seems the case here too. You can always find someone who tells you what you want to hear. From where I stand, mostly ignorant about climatalogy and biology, believing man-made Global Warming is false - period - seems like believing that earth was created (before the sun and the stars) in 6 days - despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Frankly, that seems arrogant and willfully childish to me.

The theater of the absurd?

Name one "alternative" energy source that will make a meaningful contribution to our energy needs while any of us are still alive.

If you say anything other than nuclear, that would be absurd. Besides, there are credible scientists on both sides of this issue. To suggest that one side has an axe to grind, while the other is motivated by purity and light--also absurd.

Everybody benefits by good decisions, and the time to worry about decisions, is before they are made--not after. Reducing the supply of our current primary energy source, based on what we now know (not think) is absurd.

Both sides talk about peer reviewed position papers. I would think a responsible President would consider both sides of this issue because, unlike the rest of us, he needs to get this right. Any other approach would be absurd.

Thanks to "Anonymous" for summarizing my opinion on this issue. Too bad he or she didn't take the time to read my actual opinions, but I will not repeat them again.

On Al Gore, even Snopes admits that he claims to have "created the Internet." That's a direct quote, not a cheap shot. In fact, if you click on the link above, you can hear him saying it in his own words. If we're going to parse words between "created" and "invented," I'll leave that to other parsers.

Anonymous is correct is stating that I don't have credentials in climatology. I suppose that means I need to keep my opinions to myself, but sometimes I just can't keep my fingers from typing these things. Perhaps we should only allow such credentialed individuals to post on this blog! Just kidding.

As to the writer's problems with the whole 6-day thing, I'll let the creator fight his own battles.

Anonymous got in all the talking Jim Hansen talking points. Good on him.

Since he or she raised the issue of "willful childishness," I feel I have license to point out his childishness in expressing unwavering certitude in connection with subjects about which he admittedly knows nothing. His--or her--entire screed is nothing more than an extremely well written "becuase they say so."

Of course, the bad news is that both guys running for the big job are on board with the UN on this subject--and they know less about it than Anonymous, who would would like us to believe that he would believe Jim Hansen if he said we were going to boil in our blood tomorrow, but be savvy enough to not to believe the head of the CIA if he told him WMD's were a slam dunk--soon after 9/11.

My goodness.

Isn't Jim Hansen CIO of Mutual of Omaha?