More on Global Warming

Remove all ads!

At the moment, that is true. However, global warming is not an issue that is going to go away. It's still going to be an issue 10, 20, even 50 years from now. So looking at the big picture, and the probelm of getting a global initiative in place, I do not think the U.S. is the biggest problem. The current administration has a very poor environmental record, so some improvement next year is nearly certain. If you look to the future though, I'd say the country that will be biggest problem concerning global warming - and one that would be very reluctant to join any global initiative is China.

 

With regard to global warming, my approach is essentially the same as Drew's. It's a bit of an environmental Pascal's Wager. If we accept global warming yet do nothing, we reap a negative result. If we accept it and do something about it, we stand only to benefit. Even if we don't accept that the earth is warming due to our activity, it still benefits all of us to conserve energy and eliminate fossil fuel consumption, as any idiot can see what coal and gasoline exhaust does to our air and water quality.

In any event, by doing nothing, we gain nothing. By doing what environmentalists have suggested for years - no more fossil fuels, conserve energy, proliferate newer energy technologies and cut down on unnecessary waste - we're ALL much better off, even if global warming is a hoax and the earth won't collapse next month. Sure there's a downside to going green - but it's a transitional one and is far outweighed by the upsides.

When I see people say things like "the jury is still out on global warming," it's hard for me not to conclude that some conservatives are more motivated by their disgust at having to agree with a liberal about something, than they are about their disagreement with scientific consensus. Hence, the constant personal strawman attacks on Al Gore (Oooh, the Goracle flies in airplanes! What a hypocrite! ) rather than actually addressing or refuting his claims on their substance.

@ T2,

But that doesn't mean that they are wrong. Considering there is a lot more corporate interest - and therefore, pressure and imposed bias on scientists, as you mention - in proving that we are NOT causing global warming (or that there is none at all), wouldn't it be reasonable to assume then that if what you're saying is true then the overwhelming consensus of the worldwide scientific community would come to the opposite conclusion that they have? That human beings are indeed responsible for climate change? Biases only get you so far when dealing with verifiable facts, do they not? As a scientist yourself, do you have no faith in the peer review to weed out such biases?

 

Yeah I know, China is in fact probably being the biggest dick about this. Atleast the situation in the US is improving while China thinks that this is the fault of the allready industrialized countries and for them to demand China to halt their growth is hypocracy. The Chinese of course have a valid point in this, however it's not a very helpful point. The irony is that China is a country which would suffer absolutely horribly from global warming. This kind of bickering is the reason why I'm not convinced that a scientific consensus is much of a help if the political consensus is unreachable, which it to me right now seems to be.

Personally I think European countries are being idiotic when they are making unilateral cuts to their greenhouse gases, if China and US don't make the cuts this ain't going to help a bit and is damaging to our competitiveness and economy. Ah well atleast someone from Europe who has not drowned yet may send a message to the Americans and the Chinese saying "I told you so!" for what it's worth.

 

Good point, Drew. Although I obviously haven't accepted the human caused global warming theory, I will agree with you on this. We do need to get off of the fossil fuel for various reasons. I just think that going off half-cocked and simply doing something just for the sake of appearing to be doing something isn't the answer. Mandating the production of ethanol is a good example. Ethanol is not a good solution. Continuing research on hydrogen fuel cells is a good solution. It may not happen for a few years, but the end result will be worthwhile.

An excellent point, Aldeth. Quite frankly the third world and the developing world could care less about environmental degradation. Such a focus would inhibit thier continued development and they would view that as harmful to themselves. We in the developed West can afford to spend time and resources on such things.

Al Gore is the most vocal and visible proponent of global warming awareness. I'd wager that he's also making a lot of money off of it (i.e. his carbon offset company), therefore he's a legitimate target. Anyway, I was using him as an example of those who profit from the gloabal warming "crisis."

I find it interesting that everyone assumes that global warming is inevitably a bad thing. Human beings are an adaptable lot. Somehow I think that mankind would survive such an occurrence without too much difficulty. It has happened before and will happen again. For mankind to assume that we are causing it (given the time scales involved) is presumtious.

This whole subject smacks of hysteria. When people succumb to hysteria, common sense goes out the window.

 

I realize that and I agree. I never said he wasn't a legitimate target, but if you're going to attack him, attack him on substance. If he's a huckster and "An Inconvenient Truth" is full to the brim with lies and deceptions put forth in a cynical effort for Gore to enrich himself, then his detractors would be a lot more credible if they spent their time bringing those inaccuracies to light rather than attack a high-profile billionaire for using a private jet, as if that invalidates his message, makes him a hypocrite or is even relevant.

This is part of the problem with a lot of the detractions I see. If human beings were the only life forms on earth affected by climate change, I would agree with you. But we aren't. In addition to wild animals who are dying off because their natural habitats are shrinking (polar bears being the example du jour), animals we consider sources of food are being affected as well. The world's ecosystems are fragile and though they can repair or adapt themselves naturally over time, it's not an overnight change, or even a change any of us are likely to see in our lifetimes. I could dig up a few dozen examples of this if I had more time*, but since I'm at work now I'll just say that I urge you to read up on your environmental science if you think it's that simple. You may not care what happens to any creature other than human beings, and that's fine. But I care, a hell of a lot.

And it's not an "assumption" that we are causing global warming. It's the consensus conclusion of the world scientific community based on mountains of evidence and decades worth of debate. It's about as close to a fact as it gets. I respectfully suggest that it's you who is making the assumptions.

*Better yet, just ask Drew. He's far more versed on the subject than I am, and I daresay anyone at SP to boot.

I agree. It'd be nice if both sides could sit down, examine the facts at hand, weigh the costs and benefits of action and then just do something about it, instead of all the constant bickering. But that's what happens when legitimate universal issues get politicized.

 

Wow, I'm surprised that you would want to go there, after Cheney and Halliburton, all the Bush staffers who went to work for the big drug companies after passage of the prescription drug program, all the Republican Congressmen who have been busted for taking kickbacks and illegal bribes from defense contractors. And now you come out with that. Wow! At least Al Gore is a private citizen, and the last time I checked this was America, and people in private life were allowed to pursue whatever they wished, as long as it was legal.

Regardless of the gross amount of hypocracy loaded in that statement, I thought that conservatives measured the success of everything by how much money was to be made? I would think that Al Gore, by that measure, would be a good example of the American Entrepreneur at work in the free market. Isn't that the conservative dream? I forgot, liberals are not allowed to make a lot of money. Isn't there some law against that?

 

Though it pains me to admit it, I agree with TMH.

The global warming deniers (note I don't say skeptics) are the contemporary equivalent of flat-Earthers.

Why reason with the unreasonable?

 

@Amaster

Or you could claim the corallory. The global warming believers are the contemporary equivalent of middle age's Christians/ Modern day Muslims (i.e. willing to believe anything as long as their leader says it).

Why reason with the fantatic?

The only proof will be in the future. I'm willing to bet in sixty years we will still be here posting and our coastal cities will still be here.

 

And all along I thought those were Republicans who would follow their "fearless leader" onto the "Crusades."

Yes, well, think of it this way: Let's say, a speeding truck is headed towards you, while you blindly go about your business. But someone says:
"Hey, there's a truck heading your way. And you say:

"Don't worry, it's not gong to hit me (because you believe that you are protected by GWB. And we all know that he keeps everyone "safe."

But the other person says," Hey, it sure is getting closer, my friend."

But you, in your protective Bush costume, reply: "I'll wait until there is conclusive proof and "absolute" scientific evidence regarding the trajectory of the speeding truck before I do anything so foolish as move out of the way of a speeding truck."

Here are your choices:

A. The truck goes around you because the driver takes pity on you.

B. The truck stops because the driver has nothing better to do than wait for pedestrian conservatives to move out of the way of oncoming traffic.

C. You jump out of the way because you suddenly realize that the truck may be driven by an "Islamic terrorist fanatic" and Dick Cheney has moved the "terror alert" to red.

So let's all just sit back and wait around to see if disaster is about to befall humanity...Pass the Jack Daniels, please.

 

Snook:

The middle age Christians had thousands of objective, peer-reviewed journal articles supporting their theories? Please, do direct me to these articles.

Chandros:

I love you.

 

What comes to mind here? It begins with I and ends with Q...Sorry, BTA, I could not resist taking the easy shot.

But we are putting people in prison and torturing them - "just to be sure." Why is it so hard to admit that the problem merits closer study? And that people need to be skeptical, while at the same time keeping an open mind to the possibilities?

 

No one is asking you to do that. I would point out, though, that part of what the "other side" is asking you to swallow is inaction. If the consensus of the IPCC is right, what would the cost of such inaction be? Chandos' oncoming truck example is rather apt, in this case. If there is a substantial possibility that you are about to be hit by a truck, you shouldn't be pausing to debate whether or not the truck is actually heading your way. You should get out of the road. Sure, maybe the truck was going to see you and stop or change lanes before hitting you. Maybe the truck was a mirage, an acid trip, or a slow moving tractor trailer that only sounded like a truck, but would you want to bet your life on it?

Be skeptical about global warming if you wish. As long as skepticism isn't used as an excuse for inaction, it's actually healthy to be skeptical. Just don't allow your skepticism to cause you to advocate inaction when faced with mountains of peer reviewed, government funded research (which T2 says is the least biased research available) supporting the consensus opinion and absolutely no peer reviewed research whatsoever (at least that has been published within the last 15 years or so) favoring the opposite stance.

 

I'm kind of agreeing with BTA here. Kind of. There is a lot about weather patterns and climate change that isn't taken into account although it should.

In some sense an inconvenient truth can be very convenient. Oh, it's a truth and it does make certain instances squirm, but admit a small lie, make it seem bigger than it is and everyone will look at the elephants tail and going WTF is that instead of noticing the big friggin' elephant at all.

Gore and what he says is beneficial to neoconservatives, industrialists and whatnots. In a way he's a welcome distraction. Deforestation doesn't get much attention these days...and one thing contributing to it is the readiness to jump into making ethanol fuel. Yes, cut those forests down to get some corn. Way. To. Go.

But still. Gore's right. IPCC is most likely right. One question just bothers me. Is the increased global temperature, or the fact that the temperature's rising the major contributor for weather patterns going haywire? CO2 a greenhouse gas, check. Temperature rising, check. But then it's a little leap of faith to say that there is a causal relation with the freaky weather while they do coincide.

My opinion is that human activity is the major contributor for global warming and for the bloody weather. But it worries me how the forest industry and any instance that's cutting them woods down seems to be getting off the hook right now.

 

@Many

Chandos's truck analogy is flawed. Everyone on this board understands trucks and can rely on their own experience. Change the analogy to an alien invasion is imminent and it is more realistic. On one side you have some hysterical astronomers who are telling us the planet is about to be invaded by a fleet of alien spacecraft. They are telling us that we have to unite the world under the UN govenment, develop spacecraft, and prepare a unified defense or we all die. On the other side we have other astronomers who are telling us, they don't see any space ships coming and while it may be a good idea for all nations of the world to come together and live in peace and harmony and develop space, it isn't necessary.

Now add in a UN sponsored study which we will call IPCC (for fun of course). They join in the hysterical bleating and claim that everyone who is smart agrees with them and that they have all looked at each others work and say it is peer reviewed. They then use their political influence to discredit anyone who disagrees with them and claim the are obviously not as well peer reviewed, so nobody should listen to them. Then we come to find out that IPCC is a political organization and was quashing all internal dissent to the "party line" to make it seem like a unified front.

Then we come to find out that the data the IPCC and its supporters have been using is flawed. The radio telescopes they have been using to intercept alien signals have been placed near TV towers (kind of like temperature guages being placed near air conditioning vents, if anyone has read BTA's posts (at least I think it was him)). Then to top it off it turns out that the people intrepreting the data won't let others see the raw data, and when they do, someone else figures out a major flaw in their methodology (kind of like NASA in my post above).

So now what is the common man to do. We have some people who figure, what the hell, what is the harm in all of us being citizens of Earthgov instead of our current nations. Even if IPCC is wrong, wouldn't we be better off anyway, so I'm going to keep reading PRAVDA and spout the party line. Then we also have the other people who think the entire thing is a smelly pile of you know what and want to continue living their lives the way they always have.

The first type of common man is hailed as an intelligent decision maker for following the party line and accepting as fact everything they have been told, yet they do not have the experience or education to truly understand any of this, nor have they been able to look into a telescope and actually see the alien ships.

The second type of common man is ridiculed by the first type. This of course is a standard slander campaign to discredit all dissent and opinion as it is obviously the Eviilll Neo-Cons who are responsible for the alien invasion as George Bush has signed a secret treaty to be made emperor of the planet and all of the moonbat liberals are to be used as food for the aliens. In addition Bush is spending too much money in Iraq and Rumsfeld is personally targeting civilians with smart bombs while in his pajamas.

What is a person to do????

 

Your analogy is flawed, because you are equating the vast majority of climatologists as a 'fringe group'. In fact, I resent you equating the concern over global warming with some hysterical nutters ranting about alien invasion. That's infinitely more offensive (and contains far less substance) than my 'crack whore' comment to Drew.

The truck analogy expounded by Chandos is perfect, because any layman who cares about getting educated can analyze the (literally) hundreds of peer-reviewed articles in numerous scholarly journals, all of which overwhelmingly point to the same conclusion.

The phenomenom of 'global warming' is the 'real deal', and part of this phenonemom is due to human interference. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. Facts and overwhelming assocations don't cease to exist just because you're ignorant.

Get educated. Yes, that's right, I'm implying that you're uneducated. Read actual journal articles, instead of the garbage spoon fed to you in the United States, especially by Faux News. In case you aren't aware, the vast majority of civilized countries outside of the United States regard the skeptical attitude of your country to global warming with bewilderment.

Oh, but don't worry. I'm sure we are all just hysterical. Isn't it time for your 'Two Minutes Hate'?

 

Always? Always? What on earth does that mean? You mean those times when there were people saying things like "Heyy...lead in the atmosphere doesn't make people sick!" or "Heyy, ozone holes don't do anything!" or "Heyy, asbestos doesn't cause cancer!" I'm not ridiculing, mind you, at the times these things were an issue there were plenty of people making such claims...common people just like anyone else, and not so common who had to protect their self-serving interests...

 

@The Mountain Hare

Thanks for proving my point. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is obviously wrong and a "hater". Have fun at the crusades, don't forget to kill some heathens for me

Also thanks for mentioning Fox news, it must also be their fault as they are the propaganda wing of the neo-con Republicans and their imperious leader Bu****ler. It was a terrible oversight for me not to add them to my previous post.

As to get educated. If I was willing to quit my job I could go tit for tat with you. For every article you find blaming Humanity (and especially Western culture) for global warming, I bet I can find one that refutes it. Although, I'm pretty sure I can already hear your feeble cries of "Bias, that person is not impartial." The number of people who only see bias in one direction, never ceases to amaze me.

@Iku-Turso

You are absolutely correct. However, think of all the times the scientific hysteria as backfired. A perfect case in point is DDT. DDT was banned because in high doses it can cause cancer. Would anyone like to guess how many people died of malaria because we stopped using DDT?

At least in the DDT, asbestos, lead, etc. the proof could actually be shown to people. The evidence was irreputable. There were actually people who died with high doses of lead, asbestos, etc. in them.

The global warming disciples are relying on probably the most faulty science there has ever been. I have said it before, and I'll SHOUT it again. If the weathermen with all of their satellites, doppler radars, ocean temperature sensors, and hundreds of years of data, still can't predict if it is going to rain tomorrow, what the temperature will be, or how much snowfall we are going to get with any degree of accuracy, HOW IN THE HELL DO YOU EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE THAT THEY KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN FIFTY, OR A HUNDRED YEARS!

If I see a truck coming at me I know what is going to happen and can do something about it. If you tell me on May 3rd, 2053 a truck is going to come at me, I think I am well in my right to call you a nutjob.

But of course I must be wrong, there isn't any other possibility. This is why I compare Global warming to a religion. To someone who believes in it, it is like me telling a Christian that Jesus was just a crappy carpenter, or a Muslim that Mo, was nothing but a goat herder. It is heresey. What cracks me up, is seeing devout atheists believing in Global warming. They have no faith in a higher power, but are willing to believe weathermen, when their own eyes and experience shows that they don't know what they are talking about.

 

Actually I think it was the DDT resistant mosquito strains and its bioaccumulation that was the reason for quitting the use of DDT. Now they're at it again by the way.

What I do know for a fact is this: humans are a force of nature capable to change the face of the earth and the way the weather flows because of our ingenuity and for the combined effect of the biomasses of ourselves and the species we cultivate for our consumption. Too bad we're not smart enough to aknowledge which way the truck is going until it might be too late...

I'm extremely concerned about the rate of deforestation and it's effects on local weather patterns. I'm worried and I know that local weather patterns affect global weather patterns. Add to this the concern about the global warming which I know to be happening, not because the thermometer says so, but since there are species coming up north where I live which haven't been able to live here because previously it's been too cold most of the year.

Why is the planet warming up? Are we humans the only ones to blame? I don't really know. Perhaps I don't even care, not as such if wouldn't cause havoc which it does. But what I do know is that the way that we live and want to live is unsustainable. Not because the globe is warming up, but because we're consuming our finite recources excessively and needlessly, resources which could be used much more productively than into little plastic toys for our easter eggs or happy meals and other silly knick knacks. Oh, the luxury to bury ourselves in trash while millions are dying of starvation and malnourishment every single year. And so what? People die, live with it, but I need my extra soft toilet paper. Is that how it is?