Are you a denier or believer in global warming?

Newell Normand
Thursday, September 14th

Global warming – are you a denier or believer?  We’ll look at natural cycles versus human influence.

This segments guest:
Dr. Bob Thomas - Director of the Center of Enviornmental Communications for Loyola University

00:17:24

Transcript - Not for consumer use. Robot overlords only. Will not be accurate.

We're back we're gonna go to the pro ready Pontiac opinion poll global warming or climate change are you a believer. A deny or are you still confused and hires 42% believer 33%. Confused just don't know 25%. Let's hear from you let's get on a credit Pontiac opinion poll. So doctor Thomas. You know we've had several attacks command and one of them talk about that global warming is not only man made so explain it to us. Well there's a lot there's all these other things that are out there include that water vapor we talked about while ago. But but somebody did say that humans only contribute 5% to the entire issue. So that's may animal in their minds at rest of it is natural. The best way to explain that is that it's well we talked about it a while ago we talked about these four arrives at her 22000. Times as powerful. As. As carbon dioxide. It's the same sort of thing because the fact that mankind. Is actually putting in five point 54%. Of the greenhouse effect. I read a book years ago about nuclear energy about a putting nuclear plants and neighborhoods and a lot of opposition a lot of support. We're still debating that issue. And this. Very astute person who wrote the book. Understands nuclear very well. Made the analogy that when they talked to the people who are building the plant they said they said everybody's concern is about being exposed to more radiation. And they say 00. Well forget about that because there's already background radiation comes in from outer space and we're adapted to that and we live fine with that. This emits about the same amount so it's almost negligible. And this. Nuclear physicist says all contrary. If you double. That small amount of radiation. You might increase. The cancer. Affects. By. A thousand. So just because it's small amounts and we change a little bit. Doesn't mean that it's inconsequential. And that's something the scientific community is very acutely aware of and is always working on. So. You know I I don't I don't I can't convince you that you don't want to believe that if that's the way it is but it is something has gotten a lot of attention. So only think about the politicization. Of this issue. It has begs the question. Is it too late to prevent. Climate change are we so fart. Downed road and we have we have a caller. That I'd like to go to Patrick in Metairie on on line to Patrick. Our guest chair even though you're sheer don't like college. Future of a great job and doctor king Cole all that I was giving. They wanted to inform your listeners which your bill to agree. Com. And global. Climate changes. Have happened since been dormant and and summons. Have defected to blow directly in trauma of going to hot and we. Look back in the more recent action. Call home England. Used to be able to produce city back amount of wine. Arm and now it is too cold. Our promote our debate going to do such and such action. That's just one small example and going off but what I look like the days that when it comes to be politics sign up. Especially all the countries want to get a whole week's arms agreement you know were were in the past being here. I don't even bigger. A large group of the globe coming to sign an agreement where we are headache. All other countries. To rectify their climate change problems. All my belief for the better part. Arm in forty years. Are in remote parts of industrialized China it is recommended against CBC and every other WHO. Every organization to walk around there without a greeting. So. You know is wrong it is that is happening I just don't see what we have chew. Pay all or country. Should do an agreement so that the pair climate agreement that our current president chose not to be a part of com and even though. I am a conservative on the eco political stadium as I hate. I like to go efficiently. And I don't want to water and opening more like wetlands. I just think a lot of times this boots over indulge. In actually by. Median celebrity site couldn't they'd they'd they'd like the attention. So doctor Thomas. You know we've had several text command and one of them talk about the global warming is not only man made so explain it to us. Well there's a lot there's all his other things that are out there include men water vapor we talked about a while ago. But but somebody did say that humans only contribute 5% to the entire issue. So that's minimal in their minds at rest of it is natural. The best way to explain that is that it's well we talked about a while ago we talked about these four guys that are 22000. Times as powerful. As. As carbon dioxide. It's the same sort of thing because the fact that mankind. Is actually putting in five point 54%. Of the greenhouse effect. I read a book years ago about nuclear energy about a putting nuclear plants and neighborhoods and a lot of opposition a lot of support. We're still debating that issue. And this very. Astute person who wrote the book. Understands nuclear very well. Made the analogy that when they talked to the people who are building the plant they said they said everybody's concern is about being exposed to more radiation. And they say 00. Well forget about that because there's already background radiation comes in from outer space and we're adapted to that we live fine with that. This emits about the same amount so it's almost negligible. And this. Nuclear physicist says all contrary. If you double. That small amount of radiation. You might increase. The cancer. Affects. By a thousand. So just because it's small amounts and we change a little bit. Doesn't mean that it's inconsequential. And that's something the scientific community is very acutely aware of and is always working on. So. You know I I don't I don't I can't convince you that you don't wanna believe that if that's the way it is but it is something has gotten a lot of attention. So only think about the politicization. Of this issue. It just begs the question. Is it too late to prevent. Climate change are we so. Fart downed road and we have we have a caller. That I'd like to go to Patrick in Metairie on online to Patrick. Our guests share even though you're richer but the sheer did a great job and doctor thank protect coal on. Giving com. They wanted to inform your listeners which your degree jobs. The global. Climate changes. Have happened since been dormant and can summon. Have defected to blow negatively in trauma and Don different hot and we. Look back in the more recent action. Com England. Used to be able to produce city back out of line. Arm and now it is too cold. All or most are they going to do such and such action. That's just one small example and going all but what I like that stated that when it comes to the politics side of especially all the countries want to get a whole week's arms agreement you know were were to wind up being here. I don't even bigger. A large group of the globe. To sign an agreement where we hey. Other countries. To rectify their climate change problems. All my belief for the better part. Forty years. Are in most parts of industrialized China it is recommended against CC in every other WHO. Every other organizations to walk around without a greeting. So. You know in the long is that is happening I just don't see what we have chew. Hey all our country. Should do an agreement so that that they're climate agreement that our current president chose not to be a part of long and even know. I am a conservative on the eco political stadium. I hate. I like it operationally. And I don't want the water and opening more like my wetland. I just think a lot of arms that boots over in dole down X actually by. Media and celebrity site couldn't believe they've they've like the attention. Patrick I think that's a great question I know I'm great observation and I think what we'll do is we got to go to or break the will get doctored. Bob Thomas director of the center of environmental communications foil an answer that when we're back. Newell Norman on W Dario. We're back and we go to the pro ready jaguar. Opinion poll 41% to nine hours 38% believers. 21% confused on the issue of global warming or climate change or are you a believer dinar or you still confused. Dock when we look at. Each and evidence in order to determine. What the greenhouse effect in greenhouse gas levels are weak you know we've looked. That tree rings ocean sediments stories and layers of sediment Terry rods. And it. Does the best science says that that. Reveals the current warming at roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice age recovery warming. When you look at that evidence for me those are light outcomes. Go back to the twenty dollar analogy okay we can say that this is a fact that this this is what it but he did temperatures and this is what. It was at that point Tom miserably to the climate. How do we actually know why. The wide being what drove that out com. There's a body a science that says the orbited the earth change in was passing either closer to this honor further problems on. But we don't really know doing well. What we know and science is what. What we have learned from a search. We've published the scientific community too is on a law. Maybe debates that may be refutes it. He comes back to what that maybe original. Recommendation wise and been their starts to be this consensus that grows in the scientific community. And that's what we call. Fact in terms of what how we understand now the earth works. Is that right or wrong. Only time and only consensus we'll tell us if if I'd do something and the scientific community totally ignores it then I was wrong. But a tad bit not that ten years from now they may Panetta was right. So as the show is as strange thing about humans that drives our acceptance of information. Is its broad acceptance tells us at the moment this is what we see as the truth. So in the day of modern science is with satellite technology. And and everything else says there have been a validation. Relative to. The earth. Getting ever closer. Or further. Away from the sun. As they're saying may have caused. You're asking me seven now that I can't explain that I've I don't know. I'm not an astrophysicist well it's it's it's relatively new technology but as you said we're still looking for the validation as a relates to some of the promises that we've put out there observations that we've put out there. That we now accepted as fact. And it's just it's curious because. We see a lot of a satellite. Images of the topography. Of the earth than in the retreat to the polar cap and things of that nature rivers that are historically. Frozen over to the month of day of the month of June which are now occurring the melt is occurring in late April. They were measuring so many different things almost to the aisle war. And and you know in mop where I get confused is the relevance of that when we don't have. The baseline and it almost seems like we're just still developing the baseline. Over appeared to talk. Well we are I mean and we will always be doing that and will always be changing their minds as we get new ways to experimentally and look at information. New ways to analyze. New models you know people like to go back people are denies a cut of climate change. Love to go back and talk about the silly models back in the late date 1980s. Of course it was senator the first ones. We thought they were the best if they were the best thing that we had but now they're getting better better better better better. We're back and we're doctor Bob Thomas director of the center of environmental communications for Loyola university. And we go to the ready jaguar pole and his it was appropriately. Pointed out I say it peroni Pontiac early to talk about being confused. Global warming our climate change are you a believer deny or are you still confused. Deny or 38% believer 36%. Confused 26%. When we go to the tax board. Dockets says that. Consensus. Does not equal correct I absolutely agree with that so that's myth number one. Yeah but it but it's not really a myth it's capsule is true because we have changed our consensus. Over time as we've learned more about it. But that's the best thing that we have the way humans make decisions the way you make policy decisions. Is based on what the consensus of understanding years in a period where you have to make a decision. So what he what's the alternative. To go with something totally outlandish or do nothing. I don't think that makes people happy I guess the old fashioned best out of control. Absolutely I mean you've you've lived that life. So what other myths can we dispel well you know one of the one on that we've already talked about but also at rapidly again and that is that humans are not part of the problem. There were insignificant in the whole scheme of things that everything's natural. There are natural cycles out there there is no doubt about it. Climate is chains all along I have figures that I used to bus students to go back like millions of years and showed changes in sea level and temperatures and things like that. But. The difference is that humans weren't there now and every conversation we're having here is in the context of being human and how to fix us. And so when we talk about sea level rising out here and we have people living on zero elevation along the coastline. A little bit of an increase is gonna hurt people's prosperity. And changed their lives so we have to be very concerned about that. But but also we have kind of discussed while ago that small amounts. Are things that we put in an air that are not natural can cause. Major major issues and we have to keep track of that it's not enough I'm not chicken little I'm not gonna run out and scream that we stop the economy and kill off people and move out of areas and things like that. But that we are pragmatic. Pragmatic about it to say that we've got to pay attention as we go forward. Would doctor Thomas thanks so much for joining us today he would director of the center of environmental communications for Loyola university and we've really appreciated your insightful look into this. Subject matter and I think we really brought forth some. Very important information for a listening audience.
READ MOREREAD LESS