Global Warming | Fact or Fiction?

[Reverend Rick]

The Rev comes up with a good point. How do we influence developing nations to conserve? Is the issue important enough to consider force? Will we be forced into Eco-Wars to save the planet?

I'm an old hippie, I would get jollies watching folks required to lose their clothes dryers and start hanging their undies on the clothes line.:yes:

My next question is, with the economy in the shape it is in, how would you feel about using 1/2 the electricity you currently use now and seeing your electric bill triple?

Thermostats on 60 in winter and no air conditioning in summer. :no:

People would have to drastically reduce their driving. Gasoline would need to be increased to world standards of around 8 bucks a gallon.

I'm thinking plane travel would have to be all but stopped as well.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Lead by example. Refusing to change unless China changes first is childish.

You are doing no more than burning your stinky trash in your next door neighbors back yard and feeling better about yourself.

The difference between you and I is, if I wanted to change my footprint, I would expect to see a result. Otherwise it is a big waste of time and resourses.

So how about it? Should we force the world to go green? The whole world?

 

[Reverend Rick]

No, what is really silly is believing that reality is limited to your understanding of it.

Look at the graph FH. Is it flat? Do you expect it ever will be?

 

[Reverend Rick]

We can't really state conclusively whether the climate is changing or not until more time passes and we look back at the history.

Things look fine to me.

 

[Alceste]

You are doing no more than burning your stinky trash in your next door neighbors back yard and feeling better about yourself.

The difference between you and I is, if I wanted to change my footprint, I would expect to see a result. Otherwise it is a big waste of time and resourses.

So how about it? Should we force the world to go green? The whole world?

Not happening. Thanks to the failure of nations like ours to act when it could have made a difference (too busy waiting for China to start the ball rolling), we have signed up for catastrophic climate change in this century, with the impacts already being felt all around the world and exponentially increasing extinctions already occurring.

Since the time for preserving our existing society has passed, we should share and learn as much information as we can about how it may be possible for most of humanity to avoid the mass starvation, war and disease a hotter world makes inevitable.

Out of curiosity, how is energy, food, water and economic independence from a crumbling global system not a "result" in your world?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

"The problem is too big to fix, so it's better to pretend there is no problem."

More likely, the problem is there is nothing to fix, ie there is no problem. Climate change, currently on a warming trend, is natural and will happen regardless of what we do. The fact that there is no problem in the eyes of the Earth doesn't mean that we personally don't have a really big problem, how to survive while the climate continues to change. In my opinion its a mistake to falsly identify the problem. Saying the Earth is in danger is incorrect and folks like the Rev jump on that mistake saying that everything else your saying is just as wrong. If we focus on the fact that the Earth's climate is going to change and try to plan for how to live with that change we might get a lot more done.

 

[Alceste]

More likely, the problem is there is nothing to fix, ie there is no problem. Climate change, currently on a warming trend, is natural and will happen regardless of what we do. The fact that there is no problem in the eyes of the Earth doesn't mean that we personally don't have a really big problem, how to survive while the climate continues to change. In my opinion its a mistake to falsly identify the problem. Saying the Earth is in danger is incorrect and folks like the Rev jump on that mistake saying that everything else your saying is just as wrong.

Like I said, I don't argue with Americans about the facts of climate change any more. It's a waste of time - somebody crapped in the well of science education in your country and it's made discussion of certain subjects totally pointless. You can believe whatever you want. It's none of my business.

If we focus on the fact that the Earth's climate is going to change and try to plan for how to live with that change we might get a lot more done.

In that case, let me introduce you to my first post in this thread.

 

[Father Heathen]

Like I said, I don't argue with Americans about the facts of climate change any more.

Except, you know, not all Americans are anti-science/anti-intellectual conservatives.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Like I said, I don't argue with Americans about the facts of climate change any more. It's a waste of time - somebody crapped in the well of science education in your country and it's made discussion of certain subjects totally pointless. You can believe whatever you want. It's none of my business.

Not all Americans are as dense as you suggest, some are but not all. Science has confirmed global warming but not what degree mankind has contributed to it. Do you agree with this statement? If so then what is the problem with what I said? If you believe that mankind is mostly causing global warming and we can reverse the effect by our actions then please supply the scientific evidence of such. Most environmental scientists I have read are very reluctant to make a firm stand on what our level of involvement is with global warming or what our efforts to reverse it might accomplish.

In that case, let me introduce you to my first post in this thread.

Good post, and very doable in the western world. How do you suggest we get the rest of the world to follow along. Lead by example is a nice thought but don't know of a single historical precedent of it so I can't see it actually working now.

 

[waitasec]

To the parasite, not much good at all. But I'm sure the host would be very happy to see the parasite gone. The relationship is not symbiotic where both parasite and host are interdependant on each other.

i don't think the host cares really...

You attach a lot of importance to the human race to the planet's well being.

i know it's a bad habit...i am human after all.

But the opposite is true, we are very destructive to the planet's well being so eliminating us would be very helpful to it. Maybe its better that the Earth isn't sentient, we wouldn't win a war with her.

i don't think the planet cares one way or another...

a black whole will eventually swallow everything up, or our sun will die and that will be that.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

a black whole will eventually swallow everything up, or our sun will die and that will be that.

Will it? Wont the universe continue on? Isn't our planet nothing more than a spec of dust in the cosmos? Just as we are not relevant to the planet, neither is the planet relevant to the universe. Yet, who is to say what is truly relevant. Maybe it is all connected at a level we can't even imagine.

Yeah, yeah, I know. Mixed signals.

 

[waitasec]

Will it? Wont the universe continue on?

not that i am aware of
a sun dies every second some where in the universe...

Isn't our planet nothing more than a spec of dust in the cosmos?

yes. quite humbling

Just as we are not relevant to the planet, neither is the planet relevant to the universe. Yet, who is to say what is truly relevant. Maybe it is all connected at a level we can't even imagine.

our sentience and reason give it meaning...call it a curse call it a gift...
but personally i would rather be ignorant of meaning ...but alas that is impossible

, yeah, I know. Mixed signals.

it's all good to me...

 

[Alceste]

Except, you know, not all Americans are anti-science/anti-intellectual conservatives.

I do know that, but 99 times out of 100 the people I talk to who reject climate science also happen to be Americans. It seems to be a pretty uncommon opinion outside the US.

I don't mean to offend Americans in general. In fact, some of my best friends are Americans.

 

[Alceste]

Not all Americans are as dense as you suggest, some are but not all. Science has confirmed global warming but not what degree mankind has contributed to it. Do you agree with this statement? If so then what is the problem with what I said? If you believe that mankind is mostly causing global warming and we can reverse the effect by our actions then please supply the scientific evidence of such. Most environmental scientists I have read are very reluctant to make a firm stand on what our level of involvement is with global warming or what our efforts to reverse it might accomplish.

Reversing it is out of the question at this point. The most we can hope for is to slow the impact by trying to keep CO2 levels below the threshold that will spark uncontrollable positive feedback loops like the melting of methane clathrates.

Good post, and very doable in the western world. How do you suggest we get the rest of the world to follow along. Lead by example is a nice thought but don't know of a single historical precedent of it so I can't see it actually working now.

I don't think in terms of how I can go about forcing or persuading all 7 billion people on the planet to behave responsibly. I think in terms of what I can do to protect myself, my family and my community from the worst impacts of climate change.

Wouldn't you say that democracy itself is an example of a form of social organisation that has led by example? When one community / society / nation makes something new that everybody wants for themselves, the rest follows naturally.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So how about it? Should we force the world to go green? The whole world?

Ideally that would be good, especially so the global economy wouldn't be shut down once we run out of oil and natural gases. There are varying estimates on how much longer they will last, with some estimating we will be out in 10 years, and some over 50 years, but many are saying we don't have as much oil remaining as people think.
And if the 10 year mark is correct, we will be in alot of trouble unless we make many over-night changes. But even if the 50 year mark is right we really do need to start planning today on transitioning from limited energy sources to sustainable energy sources.
I blame the whole debate of Global Warming for being the biggest obstacle in getting done what needs to be done. Many natural disasters have had a far greater impact on the global environment than we have, but the reality is is that pollution does cause damage to living beings and property alike, and we will run out of our fossil fuels. Those should really be the only focus, rather than on temperatures that may or may not be natural or artificial, and certainly are not close to the worst the planet has seen.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Reversing it is out of the question at this point. The most we can hope for is to slow the impact by trying to keep CO2 levels below the threshold that will spark uncontrollable positive feedback loops like the melting of methane clathrates.

Sounds good but I don't know that even slowing the impact is possible or even desirable. If the planet wants to change the temperature then it could be dangerous to try and stop it. This is where the arguement over how much of Global Warming is man made is important. I believe most of the temperature change is natural and we should plan accordingly. I also agree that we should reduce pollution for our own safety but I don't see that as slowing down the warming trend.

I don't think in terms of how I can go about forcing or persuading all 7 billion people on the planet to behave responsibly. I think in terms of what I can do to protect myself, my family and my community from the worst impacts of climate change.

Move north, out of the desert areas. Sooner or later Canada is going to say no more and close its borders.

Wouldn't you say that democracy itself is an example of a form of social organisation that has led by example? When one community / society / nation makes something new that everybody wants for themselves, the rest follows naturally.

Nope. Where has democracy spread due to our example?

 

[Sunstone]

So far as I've heard, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists now believe that global climate change has a human cause. If one wants to argue against that, one might do well to explain why so many scientists are in agreement.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

So far as I've heard, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists now believe that global climate change has a human cause. If one wants to argue against that, one might do well to explain why so many scientists are in agreement.

Yep, but what they don't agree on or refuse to say is how much cause. It gets really fuzzy at that point and I think they simply don't know. I lean towards less rather than more and that the impact is to speed up a natural event rather than creating the event itself.

 

[Alceste]

Sounds good but I don't know that even slowing the impact is possible or even desirable. If the planet wants to change the temperature then it could be dangerous to try and stop it. This is where the arguement over how much of Global Warming is man made is important. I believe most of the temperature change is natural and we should plan accordingly. I also agree that we should reduce pollution for our own safety but I don't see that as slowing down the warming trend.

Move north, out of the desert areas. Sooner or later Canada is going to say no more and close its borders.

Nope. Where has democracy spread due to our example?

It's very well understood what the consequences of a few degrees of warming are most likely to be: mass extinction and global food and water shortages. It's crazy to promote a platform of inaction based on the argument we don't know what the consequences of rapid warming are likely to be. You might as well argue that if your body "wants" to get cancer it might be dangerous to stop smoking.

Re: democracy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_democracy

America didn't invent it.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

It's very well understood what the consequences of a few degrees of warming are most likely to be: mass extinction and global food and water shortages. It's crazy to promote a platform of inaction based on the argument we don't know what the consequences of rapid warming are likely to be. You might as well argue that if your body "wants" to get cancer it might be dangerous to stop smoking.

Mass extinction is very well understood? Not sure I buy that one. And who said anything about inaction, well besides the Rev. The climate will change, no doubt about that. Global food and water shortages, all ready experiencing that. The only thing likely to change is who the shortages impact. The actions that need to take place are planning for a warmer Earth. Where will crops grow? Where will people live? These are the questions to ask. Trying to actually change the weather patterns will never work.

Re: democracy, History of democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

America didn't invent it.

So, I still don't see droves of cultures rushing to take up democracy.