Spring Break
Opinions clash in global warming debate
Jason Le Miere
Issue date: 11/20/08 Section: News
It was hard to tell whether the audience was laughing out of the humor of Hollars' delivery, or because they disagreed with him.
One of the central arguments of the side arguing that global warming is a natural occurrence was that temperatures were driving the increase in carbon dioxide, rather than the commonly accepted reverse.
"CO2 has never led to an increase in temperature, based on historical record," said Robert Cohen, a certified consulting meteorologist.
This point was countered by Cordero, who cited hundreds of scientific studies that showed that the temperature increase that has occurred over the last 50 years would not be possible without human-produced chemicals.
Hollars, meanwhile, claimed that carbon dioxide was an insignificant component of the earth's atmosphere and that, rather than being the purveyor of doom it is currently viewed as today, it is needed in order for plants to grow.
"Mars' atmosphere is about 95 percent CO2 and has no global warming," Hollars said.
Gershenson pointed out that while carbon dioxide may be a very small component of the earth's atmosphere, it is one of only two components that absorbs and traps heat.
At the culmination of the debate, moderator and SJSU professor Genelle Austin-Lett conducted an informal poll of the audience to gauge its reactions to what they had witnessed. Although few people declared to have had their mind changed by the debate, more people who were unsure about the causes of global warming beforehand said that they believed the causes were man-made.
"I thought that the negative side did a good job in giving us evidence, whereas the other side had a little bit of evidence, but then didn't really have a lot to follow up on when they were questioned," said Candice Howsden, a senior communication studies major.
Gershenson said the debate came down to whether you trust the scientists who say that there is a nine out of 10 chance that global warming is man-made.
"If I have a child and I have 10 doctors see that child," Gershenson said, borrowing from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's rationale for supporting California's California climate change legislation, "and nine of the doctors that see my child say that the child is sick and one says well, maybe not, I'm going to go with the nine."
One of the central arguments of the side arguing that global warming is a natural occurrence was that temperatures were driving the increase in carbon dioxide, rather than the commonly accepted reverse.
"CO2 has never led to an increase in temperature, based on historical record," said Robert Cohen, a certified consulting meteorologist.
This point was countered by Cordero, who cited hundreds of scientific studies that showed that the temperature increase that has occurred over the last 50 years would not be possible without human-produced chemicals.
Hollars, meanwhile, claimed that carbon dioxide was an insignificant component of the earth's atmosphere and that, rather than being the purveyor of doom it is currently viewed as today, it is needed in order for plants to grow.
"Mars' atmosphere is about 95 percent CO2 and has no global warming," Hollars said.
Gershenson pointed out that while carbon dioxide may be a very small component of the earth's atmosphere, it is one of only two components that absorbs and traps heat.
At the culmination of the debate, moderator and SJSU professor Genelle Austin-Lett conducted an informal poll of the audience to gauge its reactions to what they had witnessed. Although few people declared to have had their mind changed by the debate, more people who were unsure about the causes of global warming beforehand said that they believed the causes were man-made.
"I thought that the negative side did a good job in giving us evidence, whereas the other side had a little bit of evidence, but then didn't really have a lot to follow up on when they were questioned," said Candice Howsden, a senior communication studies major.
Gershenson said the debate came down to whether you trust the scientists who say that there is a nine out of 10 chance that global warming is man-made.
"If I have a child and I have 10 doctors see that child," Gershenson said, borrowing from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's rationale for supporting California's California climate change legislation, "and nine of the doctors that see my child say that the child is sick and one says well, maybe not, I'm going to go with the nine."
Viewing Comments 1 - 7 of 11
R James
posted 11/20/08 @ 4:33 AM PST
Hang on - let's get a few facts straight. Firstly, there is more and more doubt that global warming is due to human activity. In fact, there's growing evidence to the opposite. (Continued…)
Bob
posted 11/20/08 @ 1:47 PM PST
The New Zealand government is currently deciding how far to commit itself to Kyoto and/or ETS legislation. As part of this they have suspended all decisions until they have completed a commissioned study into all aspects of the global warming question, both for and against. (Continued…)
Dr A Burns
posted 11/21/08 @ 1:19 PM PST
Look at the data ... the world has been cooling for the past decade. Despite this, an ex-railway engineer with no training in climatology, who heads up the IPCC, claims it is warming ! Thousands of politicians and millions of uneducated, unthinking masses follow blindly. (Continued…)
Greg
posted 11/21/08 @ 1:31 PM PST
How about the 30,000 scientists who do not believe global warming is man-made? What I find interesting is that in spite of the Bay Area's supposed open-mindedness, its residents are just the opposite on global warming and actually choose to be closed-minded to scientific fact. (Continued…)
Ralph Bernstein
posted 11/26/08 @ 7:36 PM PST
There is a significant difference between scientific reasoning and analysis, and simple opinions and assertions. Trust the experts, who use mathematical modeling and atmosheric physics, and ignore the people who think they know something, but do not have the scientific education, interlect, and tools to really understand the processes. (Continued…)
Daniel
posted 12/21/08 @ 1:09 PM PST
What I find fascinating is the "they are scientists, they know what they are talking about" argument. I would point out that in the 1970's, the "consensus" of scientists were convinced that we were on the verge of entering a global cooling period, with much of the same predictions of disaster that we are seeing now. (Continued…)
andy
posted 10/22/09 @ 1:50 AM PST
i think global warming is wrong. i think that if people didn't do stuff like spray themselves with deoderants and hairspray, we might be alright. i also kind of blame it n the cows of britain. (Continued…)
Post a Comment