quote: it would take days of my valuable time to teach you enough about climate change science for you to see how totally ridiculous these arguments are.
If you feel this discussion is a waste of your valuable time, refrain from entering it, or commenting on it.
You'll be happier. So will the rest of the thread's participants.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Wow, Rabbit. You really think that doubt is not allowable in this situation?
I think that any rational open minded individual who has looked at the body of scientific evidence in the field will conclude that the evidence is overwhelming. That opinion is based on years of study in the area and a deep familiarity with the research. In my experience, I have never met an scientist or individual who took the time to sincerely investigate the scientific evidence who did not reach the same conclusion.
When you have made the first step to investigating the science behind this by reading the book I've linked you to, then I will you can question my stance.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, I fail to see how Rabbit's informed opinions coupled with her lack of desire to go into the extensive details of the support for them should be less welcome to this thread than other people's uniformed opinions coupled with their apparent lack of desire to educate themselves.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: it would take days of my valuable time to teach you enough about climate change science for you to see how totally ridiculous these arguments are.
If you feel this discussion is a waste of your valuable time, refrain from entering it, or commenting on it.
You'll be happier. So will the rest of the thread's participants.
Scott R, If what you want is a happy discussion. Keep sticking your head in the sand and limit your discussion of Global Warming to web forums where no one whos done a lick of scientific research in the area participates.
If what you want is to understand why thousands of scientist think that human activity is causing a Global Climate Crisis, then go to the link I posted and read a good lay summary of science.
But don't come here, as some have done, and complain about how people cite a scientific consensus rather than explaining the scientific facts. There are many sources where a person can learn the scientific facts. If you won't go to those, why should I believe you'd take the time to read them if I took the time to post them at hatrack.
If you question the position of the leading authorities in the area, you should at least have the decency to research what has been done.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I want isn't a happy discussion, Scott. What I want is a planet where our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren can live. What I want is to keep Bangladesh from ending up under 40 feet of water. What I want if for snow to keep falling in the Rocky Mountains. What I want is enough rainfall in Africa for people to grow crops. What I want are healthy coral reefs, polar bears, and pine trees. What I want is for people to recognize the scientific evidence out there is more than enough to cause serious concern that we could loose all those things.
Do you demand certainty that you will be in a wreck before you put your child in a safety seat?
We are playing russian roulet with our planet and using the justification that we can't be certain their is a bullet in the chamber.
The scientific evidence proves that our current life style is changing the atmosphere of our planet. It proves that these changes not only could irreversibly damage the planet but that this outcome is the most likely possibility.
If I thought anyone here would actually read a detailed discussion of the science, I'd take the days to post it. But if you won't go to the good scientific discussion I've referenced, why would you read it here? So instead, I'm just getting POd.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Although the last time I pointed this out, someone tried to convince me that airborne pollutants are a good thing
They make the sunrises and sunsets more colorful; true story.
I live in Los Angeles. I know. I would give up every beautiful sunset and sunrise for easier breathing.
True story.
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: By the way, I'm obviously a total amateur in the realm of theoretical physics ... just read some Brian Greene, Stephen Hawking, and most recently, Smolin's book. I assumed that, while Smolin definitely had a point of view others would disagree with, at least the statistical claims he made about the popularity of string theory, etc, would be accurate, simply because they're the most checkable. Apparently, someone knows better Care to elaborate? On that, and on the claim of "intellectual dishonesty"?
*wince* Greene and Hawking? Both of whom are more interested in popularization than accuracy? (Which is not to say that their books are horrible. They're not at all. It's just that making them one's sole source on the relevant issues disturbs me greatly.)
Try some of Richard Feynman's stuff. And for more recent works, try Kip Thorne's. (Actually, Kip co-authored a book with Hawking and I forget who else that you might like. He's particularly good at making things understandable without oversimplifying or overgeneralizing.)
As far as Smolin's book, I confess to not having done more than glance through it. I'm paraphrasing my dad's opinion on the book. I don't know that he's interested in participating in another Hatrack discussion on the subject of string theory, but I'll see what I can do. (I have discussed details with him, but my comprehension and recall are not good enough for me to try to reproduce them in a post.)
I don't trust every so-called authority, but I do tend to rely on people whom I have verified to my satisfaction to be experts in a given field. Particularly if I know them well. My father is a reliable source on theoretical physics. Rabbit (and several other climatologists I know IRL) is a reliable source on climate change. I am fully aware that I do not understand all the relevant data -- and I have a bachelor's in chemistry.
Expecting the details of complex scientific theories to be accessible (in the comprehension sense) to the average layperson is a nice thought, but hardly realistic. As for the less-complex information, it is widely available from universities and other independent agencies. As I recall, Rabbit and others have given many online sources. And your local library may have others.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Wow, Rabbit. You really think that doubt is not allowable in this situation?
Jon Boy, Give me a specific argument which casts doubt on global warming. I don't mean an argument like, "some scientist at MIT says its wrong". I mean, explain one specific reason why you question Global Climate Science. If you or anyone else will go just that far to qualify why you doubt the science, then I will take the time to address your specific doubt.
So far the doubters in this thread have simply argued that its not enough to claim a consensus exists one needs to explain the science. There are a plethora of books and articles that explain the science, I've even referenced them. So I turn that question back to you. It is not enough to say you have your doubts. Tell me why you doubt.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never said that I doubt it. I'm just surprised that you don't think doubt is even an option.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, I realize that a lot of what you're saying is based on conversations we've had in the past, before my opinion had evolved, so it's understandable that you're kind of freaking out But you'll note that in this thread, I haven't declared Global Climate Change to be a myth.
I do have some general reservations (not specific to this debate) about treating predictions quite the same way as facts. Until we discover some means of manipulating time, "evidence" will always consist of things that have occured in the past, and assertions we make about the future will always be less solid than assertions we make about observed phenomena.
I'm also annoyed at a lot of the politics that surround the promotion of this theory, which makes the subject itself obnoxious to me, and makes all my pet peeves far more irritable when it comes up
But that said, I think it is fair, given the work that has been done so far, to give credence to the theory. It's still hard to know what policies ought to be based on it, but certainly, in contrast to some of the opinions I've seen here, I don't think that anyone is trying to bilk anyone else.
The problem for me right now (and let me know if this is inaccurate) is the fact that Global Climate Change projections seem to be so varied. There are a great many different climatological catastrophes being predicted, on different possible timetables (at least in the material that is typically available to me — different numbers every time). There also seems to be uncertainty about the exact degree to which human input is affecting the outcome, and to what degree we would need to rein it in, and when, to make a difference.
So the problem is, if we accept that this is happening, what do we do, right now? The kneejerk response is to hack our CO2 emissions. But is it possible to do enough to effect a dramatic change without causing an economic catastrophe? If not, what else can we do to prepare?
And shouldn't there be some means for us to get prepared, in general, for climate changes of all types? I mean, climate change, caused by man or not, is the one thing that seems to be constant about Earth's climate Civilizations have died before, not necessarily because they failed to stop a change to their climate (an act which would have been beyond many of their reach), but because they failed to react appropriately to it when the inevitable change arrived.
I wonder if our focus shouldn't be shifted, at least somewhat, towards survival and problem management, rather than solely on prevention?
Anyway, that's where my head is at right now, in case you wondered
***
Squick, somehow, it doesn't surprise me that you have no problem when someone says, "I'm an expert, and I don't have time to explain it to you amateurs, so just stop disagreeing with me," given that you say that to me pretty much every time your field of expertise comes up However, most people come to Hatrack, not necessarily to kneel humbly at the feet of intellectual giants like yourself, but rather to discuss interesting issues with people who, like themselves, realize they don't know everything, but still feel like they have something of value to contribute from their own experience.
I enjoy talking to a great many people on this board who know more than I do about stuff, and I have changed my opinion on a variety of issues because of things I've learned here.
However, all of those lessons were learned from people who didn't feel the need to wield their expertise like a bludgeon, who didn't treat their "inferiors" with contempt, and who thought I was worth discussing things with, rather than simply trumping me with authority, dismissing my opinion as beneath contempt, and "winning" the argument by default, at least in their own minds.
So while Hatrack is normally a wonderful place where a sharp college dropout like myself can engage in fascinating discussions, learn from accomplished people from many different fields and with many different backgrounds, and generally expand his mind, I have to say that trying to discuss things with you is probably the single most obnoxious experience I ever have on this board.
I realize that you are probably completely incapable of seeing yourself through other people's eyes, or you would have corrected your behavior on your own, long ago. So honestly, I can't blame you for the way I feel about your posts. But I hope you don't mind too terribly much if I continue this conversation by pretending that you do not exist. I think that the best way to ensure that I will remain civil to other people is to avoid the inevitably-frustrating chore of trying to communicate with you. So thanks! Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: Your average scientific theory can be explained on a popularizable level, in such a way that interested amateurs can get the gist of how it works. If that isn't enough (eg, it is forced to skim past too many important details) to convince, then an interested reader can look at increasingly complex explanations until he either finds a level where it is convincing, or finds a level where his doubts are confirmed for a solid reason.
Right you are. Well then, global warming occurs because CO2 (and some other gases) in the atmosphere do not absorb direct sunlight, but do absorb reflected infrared radiation. Add more of these kinds of gas, and the atmosphere traps more heat. Trivial!
quote:Really, it depends on level of interest. "I understand a lot of well-informed people think this, but I've got my doubts" is a perfectly legitimate position for someone to take during the process, when they have yet to find the time to explore it in detail, but aren't willing to accept a seemingly-incredible proposition simply because someone else said they should.
I must disagree. If you are not willing to take the time to understand the issue yourself, then you cannot sit about saying "Well, that can't be true". (I note, for example, that you don't do any such thing for quantum mechanics, a much more "seemingly-incredible proposition"). In such a case you're going to have to rely on the reports of those who have taken the time to understand the issue. If people insisted on checking every counter-intuitive proposition for themselves, nobody would believe in general relativity. I think you're being quite inconsistent, here: You only apply this standard when the particular theory has political implications. Creationists use a rather similar approach to evolution, incidentally, although there it's the religious implications that are the problem.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You only apply this standard when the particular theory has political implications.
More accurately, this standard is applied when people are attempting to make a case for an almost total overhaul of the way we live our lives.
How much energy do your (not "yours" literally, of course) particle accelerators use, KoM? Are you prepared to close them down until our economy is carbon neutral?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you are not willing to take the time to understand the issue yourself, then you cannot sit about saying "Well, that can't be true".
You'll note that that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm recognizing that a lot of people apparently have good reason to believe it, but I have my doubts. That's an honest assessment of the situation, it shows respect to the people who have devoted their time to the issue, and it doesn't argue against it the way "Well, that can't be true," does.
Regarding relativity, of course I was forced to have doubts about it until I understood how it worked, and how it was demonstrated experimentally. I remember when my dad first explained it to me as a kid, and I kept thinking, "If Newton was wrong, then Einstein might be wrong, too ... could the world really work that way?" Honestly, how could a person not doubt something like that? That doesn't mean I argued passionately against it, either. But to not doubt something that makes no sense to me just because other people say I shouldn't? That would be totally against my nature, and given your stance on religion, I thought it would be against yours.
I apply this standard wherever I can. I apply it to evolution, too (a theory that I pretty much wholeheartedly accept), and to my own faith. Quite a bit of what I believe is tentative to some degree or another, and is subject to constant reevaluation in light of expanding evidence and understanding. Is there a better way to approach knowledge than this?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Haha You've actually gotten much better over the years, King. And while your initial insulting attitude annoyed me, its very brazenness made it easier to laugh off. "Wow, that guy really said that?"
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: I'm just surprised that you don't think doubt is even an option.
I didn't say doubt wasn't an option. I was responding to Geoff's comment
quote:Really, it depends on level of interest. "I understand a lot of well-informed people think this, but I've got my doubts" is a perfectly legitimate position for someone to take during the process, when they have yet to find the time to explore it in detail, but aren't willing to accept a seemingly-incredible proposition simply because someone else said they should.
In which he claims doubt is a perfectly legitimate position for someone how isn't interested enough to take the time to explore the issue.
Perhaps I should be more clear on why that isn't a legitimate position.
This isn't just an academic arguement. If what scientists have concluded is true, then we are facing a global humanitarian and ecological crisis. When doubting the scientist has the potential for such catastrophic consequences, doen't one have an ethical obligation with to either trust the experts or at least thoroughly investigate the issue before forming a contrary opinion.
If you were mayor of a town and NOAA contacted you saying a category five Hurricane was likely to hit your city in the next 3 days, would it be legitimate for you to allow doubts about the accuracy of meteorological forcast to direct your actions. Would the fact that you weren't interested in meteorology be a legitimate reason for you to fail to begin evacuating the city? If NOAA contacted you saying there was a 95% probability of the Hurrican hitting your town, but a local high school teach came to you with a different computer model that showed only 5% probability, would it be reasonable to base your policy on the doubts raised by the high school teacher? If it was your town and the mayor hadn't issued an evacuation order, would you consider "I doubted the accuracy of the NOAA predictions" to be a perfectly legitimate position.
Doubt is of course always an option, but in this case it is not a perfectly legitimate position. Given the potential consequences associate with Global Climate change, people have an ethical obligation to either rely on the experts or to fully research the subject until they have sufficient expertise to form an independet assessment of the risks. So in this case, saying I doubt the conclusions of the leading scientists but I'm not interested enough to investigate it myself is not a perfectly legitimate position.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm also annoyed at a lot of the politics that surround the promotion of this theory, which makes the subject itself obnoxious to me, and makes all my pet peeves far more irritable when it comes up.
Well Puppy, if you've got pet peeves in this area imagine how you'd feel if youd spent two decades building an understanding of the area only to have idiotic arguments like those implied in Lisa's post thrown out by people who won't even bother to read a single scientific article on the subject.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you were mayor of a town and NOAA contacted you saying a category five Hurricane was likely to hit your city in the next 3 days, would it be legitimate for you to allow doubts about the accuracy of meteorological forcast to direct your actions.
To direct them? No. To affect them? Certainly. A conscientious mayor should also prepare for the hurricane to veer off in another direction, and be ready to send aid elsewhere if necessary.
Like I said before, it doesn't need to be "either/or" ... we can tentatively accept something and prepare for it, while maintaining in our minds the notion that it might be wrong. Doing so can only make us wiser and better-prepared.
That's what I'm doing with Global Climate Change. I want to take it seriously, and act on our best predictions, but I don't want it to turn into a dogma that causes people to stop thinking rationally (which plenty of folks have already done — outside your illustrious circle, of course). I want to balance it against other considerations, and I want to make sure we're intelligently examining all of our policy options. There should be no offense in that.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well Puppy, if you've got pet peeves in this area imagine how you'd feel if youd spent two decades building an understanding of the area only to have idiotic arguments like those implied in Lisa's post thrown out by people who won't even bother to read a single scientific article on the subject.
You do realize I'm reconciling with you, right? Just not sure whether to read this in the angry tone that it seems to suggest.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
I realize I didn't elaborate when I said on page one:
quote: I accept the general principle of global warming. Even if I didn't, cutting back on greenhouse gasses seems like a good idea, and I'd support it.
So I will now, since you seem to think I'm opposed to the science:
I believe that the climate changes scientists are observing are direct effects of human influence.
So. There you go.
My objection has nothing at all to do with science, but with the dismissive attitude exhibited in this thread. It doesn't really matter to me that you SAY you're an expert; Samprimary's the one who provided the links that effectively dismantled much of the thrust of the first post. Kudos to him.
quote:When doubting the scientist has the potential for such catastrophic consequences, doen't one have an ethical obligation with to either trust the experts or at least thoroughly investigate the issue before forming a contrary opinion.
When someone asks, "Do you, I say, Do YOU BELIEVE?" the answer is not "YES! YES! I BELIEVE!" but
quote:You only apply this standard when the particular theory has political implications.
More accurately, this standard is applied when people are attempting to make a case for an almost total overhaul of the way we live our lives.
How much energy do your (not "yours" literally, of course) particle accelerators use, KoM? Are you prepared to close them down until our economy is carbon neutral?
Your point about the particle accelerators is well taken; no, I should not care to shut them down, and they do use a lot of energy. But that still has nothing to do with whether or not it's true that human action is causing climate change, and it should not be permitted to affect your belief or disbelief. It should affect only what actions you take to rectify the situation, assuming of course that you come down on the side of belief.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But that still has nothing to do with whether or not it's true that human action is causing climate change, and it should not be permitted to affect your belief or disbelief.
The effect something will have on you does effect the level of proof required before taking action (which means before forming a conclusion with sufficient personal certainty on which to base that action). This is perfectly rational behavior.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry Puppy, you are undeservedly getting the brunt of my wrath. You are correct that my responses are based largely on previous discussions and not necessarily even discussions with you. That's exacerabated by a serious life altering crises that's going on in my life right now.
You are right Puppy that there is alot of uncertainty in predictions. There is an enormous amount of effort into putting probabilities on the different scenarios and in estimating how different changes in emisions will influence the outcomes. Perhaps the largest uncertains come because we can not accurately predict how the global ocean currents will change for a given change in the surface air temperatures. We also don't understand how all the feedback loops will work. For example, right thawing of the permfrost in Siberia is causing massive releases of methane into the atmosphere. Since methane is a greenhouse gas, it will result in further warmer. If effects like this are widespread we could enter a period of run away warming.
Given what we know, it is certainly time to make the kinds of changes that we know the economy can absorb. Higher gas mileage standards, better public transit systems, higher energy efficiency standards for buildings, more renewable energy, recycling, less packaging and so on. There are a very large number of measures which have been identified which will have either a neutral or positive effect on the economy.
But I think that the potential consequences of Global Warming are so severe, that we have a moral obligation to go beyond the easy steps. I think its time we start making some serious sacrifices. America enjoys the highest per capita GDP of any country in the world. Certainly we can afford to make sacrifices without devastating the economy. Part of what we need to do is change the way we look at the economy so that we are looking at real human well being rather than simply job creation and sales numbers. Something is seriously wrong when consumers are encouraged to spend more money on stuff they never knew they needed or wanted so that other people can work longer hours than they want to.
We need the sort of vision that FDR had in WW II when he said
quote:As I told the Congress yesterday, "sacrifice" is not exactly the proper word with which to describe this program of self-denial. When, at the end of this great struggle, we shall have saved our free way of life, we shall have made no "sacrifice."
The price for civilization must be paid in hard work and sorrow and blood. The price is not too high.
We need someone with the courage to rally sacrifice from the American people. We need policies that ensure any economic down turns that result from mitigating greenhouse emissions don't hurt the poorest members of society.
I keep hearing politicians who are afraid to ask any sacrifice from the American people. Have we Americans become so decadent that we are truly unwilling to drive a more fuel efficient car so that our children will live in a more stable world. Are we truly unwilling to give up anything to save the lives of the millions of people whos homes will be under water in 50 years?
Its true that there is no guarantee that any sacrifice we make will be enough nor is catastrophy certain if we do nothing. But the same was true when our nation decided that rationing and higher taxes were worth the risk in WW II. I'm glad they made that decision. I hope our grandchildren will be as lucky.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:More accurately, this standard is applied when people are attempting to make a case for an almost total overhaul of the way we live our lives.
You are using the kind of hyperbole that is typical of this debate. The Kyoto treaty only required that we return to 1990 levels of CO2 emissions. The city of Salt Lake has already exceeded that goal by a few modest changes that have actually saved the city money.
Based on my understanding, we will ultimately need to do far more than is required by Kyoto, but even if you feel evidence is insufficient to warrant major life changes, doesn't it warrant some change? Why do so many people oppose making even modest changes like those required in the Kyoto treaty?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: My objection has nothing at all to do with science, but with the dismissive attitude exhibited in this thread. It doesn't really matter to me that you SAY you're an expert.
I'm sorry Scott R. You are taking the brunt for a history of my comments in Global Climate Change threads at hatrack. Once apon a time I used to take the time to give serious scientific explanations in Climate Change threads at hatrack. I'd even post references to the papers I've published on atmospheric chemistry and to my homepage when people questions whether our not I have the credentials I claimed. It made no difference and so I'm unwilling to put forth the effort again.
I'm sorry you have been unfairly painted by my broad sweeping brush today. As I indicated before, my really life is seriously bad right now and I have unfairly allowed that to influence my hatrack manners.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I keep hearing politicians who are afraid to ask any sacrifice from the American people. Have we Americans become so decadent that we are truly unwilling to drive a more fuel efficient car so that our children will live in a more stable world.
I hate it when politicians do this-- using the family to further their arguments.
Stop fearmongering.
I agree with you. Bush missed the perfect opportunity to ask for the sacrifices you talk about in the weeks after 9/11.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Interesting data. Last time I looked at the numbers was 2003, when the US was 2nd overall and 1st corrected for purchasing power. I wonder how much of the change reflects the drop in the value of the US dollar since that time.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are using the kind of hyperbole that is typical of this debate. The Kyoto treaty only required that we return to 1990 levels of CO2 emissions. The city of Salt Lake has already exceeded that goal by a few modest changes that have actually saved the city money.
No, it's not. You yourself say that fixing the problem will require more than Kyoto:
quote:Based on my understanding, we will ultimately need to do far more than is required by Kyoto
Emphasis mine. We rely on fossil fuels for 90% of energy consumption. Eventually, we need to get that to 0%. Short term changes don't need to go that far, and, if nothing else buy us time to get to zero fossil fuel use (assuming abiotic theories are incorrect). But, unless we do that, CO2 will continue to increase.
So please don't me of hyperbole simply because I can recognize that changing the energy source for 90% of our economy is an almost total overhaul of the way we live.
quote:but even if you feel evidence is insufficient to warrant major life changes, doesn't it warrant some change? Why do so many people oppose making even modest changes like those required in the Kyoto treaty?
You don't know my opinion on either the Kyoto treaty or CO2 reduction in general.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So please don't me of hyperbole simply because I can recognize that changing the energy source for 90% of our economy is an almost total overhaul of the way we live.
Your comment implies that any response to global climate change would require a total overhaul of the way we live. I pointed out one response which required only modest changes. If this is not what you meant, what did you mean? From the context of the discussion, this is the most obvious interpretation but even in your more recent discussion, I still think you statement is hyperbolic.
First, I will point out that it is unclear that we will need to reduce fossil fuels burning to zero in order to stabilize the atmospheric CO2 levels. Right now, the oceans and the biosphere are compensating for about 1/3 of the CO2 we are emitting so there is hope that atmospheric CO2 levels could be stabilized without reducing emissions to zero. Furthermore numerous technologies are being explored which would allow us to sequester the CO2 produced when fossil fuels are burned. These technologies could enable us to continue using fossil fuels without emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.
There are of course other reasons we will need to reduce fossil fuels emissions to zero. Most notably, fossil fuels will eventually run out or become to expensive to be practical. Although the time line for that is in question, the basic idea is irrefutable.
But even if you maintain that the implications of science indicate we will have to reduce our fossil fuels use to zero, you statement is still hyperbole because a total overhaul of the way we get energy does not necessarily equate to a total overhaul of the way we live.
If for example tomorrow there was a sudden break through in fusion technology which would allow us to replace all the electricity currently generated by burning coal with cheap clean renewable fusion generated electricity, we would have a clear path to eliminating fossil fuels use that would not require any significant overhaul of the way we live.
If tomorrow GM released an electric car that could be rapidly charged with inexpensive solar energy, we could eliminate most of our oil use with very minor changes in the way we live.
While I admit that these are unlikely scenarios, there are many such scenarios in which would allow for a smooth transition from fossil fuels use to renewable energy sources that don't require a total overhaul of the way we live even though they would require a significant overhaul in the way we generate electricity or power our cars.
All of the serious proposals regarding a response to Global Climate Change involve a combination of increased efficiency, conservation, new technologies for using fossil fuels and development of renewable resources. Those changes will require a significant effort but they do not equate to a "total change in the way we live our lives".
Heck, even in a worst case scenario in which we have to get by on the 10% of our energy resources that are currently coming from non fossil fuels resources, I suspect we still marry, have children, worship god (or not), learn and breath much as we do now. So "total change in teh way we live out lives" is definitely hyperbole.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your comment implies that any response to global climate change would require a total overhaul of the way we live....From the context of the discussion, this is the most obvious interpretation
No, it's not. It's not even an obvious interpretation. My comment implies that a solution to global warming - not just any old response - will require ALMOST a total overhaul of the way we live.
quote:I pointed out one response which required only modest changes.
A response that is basically inadequate. You stated yourself that we will need to do far more than the Kyoto protocols. One city meeting the Kyoto protocols does not solve global warming.
I certainly didn't mean "any thing that someone calls a response to global warning." I meant "something that someone calls a response to global warming that will actually stop the problems associated with it."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oooo, I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's my Global Climate Change mantra:
Most every suggestion made for the cutting of emissions is the best possible thing we could do for our country, and it has nothing at all to do with global warming. Everyone always makes two arguments about it that I think come up the most:
1. It's too expensive/it will bankrupt us. 2. We won't know for like a 100 years, so why waste the effort when we might be wrong?
The first argument is the exact opposite of what will happen, and it's so far off, I wonder if people have done ANY reading on the subject. Two is silly too, and I'll get to why.
First of all, the burning of fossil fuels and other toxic emissions causes billions of dollars a year in health problems. A few months ago a massive cloud of coal soot/smog literally massed together in China (a horribly horrible producer of toxic wastes), sailed over the Atlantic Ocean and landed in Calinornia. They have sheets on high hills and mountains there that measure air quality, and the cloud turned them blacker than they've ever seen. Which only proves that what we do at home has global consequences, and the same thing for them and us. Air quality/water quality, NATURE quality, matters, and not just because of the intrinsic value of pretty trees and clouds. Poor air quality causes a host of health issues that we have to PAY for. If the highest concern of people opposed to cutting emissions is that it will cost too much, they just don't know what they are talking about. Treating health problems relating to pollution costs billions, and billions most in lost productivity, and in lower property values for some areas.
Second, I'm FINALLY starting to hear this from national politicians, but energy independence is a NATIONAL DEFENSE issue. It's not just Greenpeace and tree huggers. Being independent for our own energy concerns gives us a HUGE advantage. Part of the reason Japan declared war on the US was because we cut off oil supplies to Japan, it's also why they drove so hard towards oil fields. They needed resources, they were DEPENDENT on foreign sources, and they still are today. No foreign power should have the ability to threaten us by cutting off oil supplies. We shouldn't be giving BILLIONS of dollars to our enemies and potential enemies because they have oil. We shouldn't be politically supporting dictators and mad men because they have oil. And we shouldn't have to worry about the stability of nations because they have oil. We should be able to produce everything we need for our daily lives here at home, and it will give us a much freer hand in dealing with foreign policy. While China and other competitors are clamoring for shrinking resources, and while they are killing their wildlife and their citizens with nasty polluting, smog creating chemicals and noxious gases, we'll be breathing easy, and we'll be saving money too.
Three: $$$$. Anyone who says it here is CRAZY if they think that a Green Economy is going to bankrupt us. It's going to renew our status as an economic powerhouse. There are billions upon billions of dollars to be made in Green business. Do you think Exxon, GE, and dozens of other HUGE corporations would be sinking billions of dollars in research into these fields if they felt they weren't profitable? GE is a major producer of turbines and fan blades for wind power, they're selling them all over the world for big bucks. Innovators all over the US are coming up with new ways of turning solar power into big money, and it IS big money. Designers are creating eco-friendly buildings that produce their own power and water, and that's making them money AND their customers money. Costs are coming down dramatically for renewable energy. Wave and tidal power is just starting to be heavily invested in too, with incredible promise. Being a world leader in clean energy means being able to EXPORT that and make big money. To say nothing of the money we can save here at home. I think our next big domestic energy project should be to get solar panels on the roof of every home in the US. It'll cut our energy needs down dramatically, and will drastically raise the value of homes and cut the energy bills of homeowners. Government should subsidize the program.
The CEOs of I think 10 major companies a couple weeks ago, including DuPont and GE wrote Bush a letter saying the government needs to make reductions in greenhouse gases MANDATORY and not voluntary. This from the leading major businesses in the nation. The same people opponents of change are saying will lose money.
Future energy for cars will bring Ford and GM back into competitiveness as well. Hydrogen cars, biodiesel, these are the types of things they are actually on par for with their Japanese competitors. And using switchgrass (which sounded funny when Bush mentioned it, but he wasn't wrong) and other such fuel sources mean we can literally grow our fuel every year. Switchgrass by the way yields three times as much fuel per acre as corn does. If we can ever make clean coal a reality too, we have a 200 year or more supply of coal that's domestically available. We're the Saudi Arabia of coal.
Green America means eco-friendly AND rich. And safe. And healthy. And we aren't all going to die from an ice age. If you all want to keep arguing about whether or not humans are contributing to global climate change, that's fine. But let's be clear what we are talking about here. A Green economy is going to be a BOON to America, in at least a half dozen ways, to say nothing of how nice it would be to lord it over the rest of the world .
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we get by on the 10% of energy resources that are currently coming from non fossil fuel resources... if energy were luxury rather than necessity, maybe the cost of energy would only go up tenfold. So it costs ten times as much to heat your house or drive to work. Everything that's transported has its transport costs go up tenfold. Maybe increased conservation and giving up those trips to Disney World would cut it back to eightfold? Sevenfold? We'd still have worldwide depression, and old people freezing to death in their homes.
But we *can't* do without energy, so it would be far worse than that. We can't feed 7.5 billion people without factory farming, and without using energy to transport that food. Billions would starve. Even if our leaders were monsters who were willing to let billions die for this theory, we wouldn't let them.
This explains the Kyoto accords. The proposed Kyoto limits would reduce CO2 so little that the projected CO2 concentration in 2020 (say) is achieved not in 2020 but around 2023. A symbolic act.
(Note: I'm not arguing against Lyrhawn here; I just happened to post after him. He's proposing R&D, I think, which is a great idea. I'm arguing against significant reductions in CO2 emissions, right now, needing only "minor adjustments.")
[ January 26, 2007, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should add I've seen some great test trials done involving carbon sequestration. Carbon can be pumped into oil fields to give much higher yields of oil and extend oil field lives by dozens of years, and then the fields are capped off and the carbon is trapped there.
I've also seen some great stuff done with algae. Carbon is captured from the stacks of large power plants and fed into tubes where algae is being farmed. It works basically like a carbon sink, the algae eats the CO2 and creates O2 as a byproduct, the water and the CO2 both come directly from the power plant. The algae can then either be used as biofuel, or as feed for livestock, or as farm supplements. It's still in the trial stages, but a lot of powerplants in Arizona and other western states are starting to team up with private enterprise to make it happen on a larger scale. It takes up a lot of acreage to make happen if they want to kill ALL of the CO2 from the plant, but the byproduct, the algae, is really, really valuable stuff (more and more as they discover more uses for it). Which I think makes the acreage worthwhile, it's not like we (in the US anyway) don't have the room to spare.
Edit to add two things:
1. Lyrhawn is a he. He can prove it if need be
2. I'm not just proposing R&D, though I think there is a lot to be done there. I'm saying there is a LOT of stuff we can be doing right NOW until the rest comes into play.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, The problem here is that your comment occurred within the context of a wider debate that is on going here at hatrack and in the world. Your comment wasn't even in response to a part of the debate you had been involved in previously. So look at that context. First lets look at the hatrack part of it.
In response to numerous comments for Geoff, KOM wrote
quote:I must disagree. If you are not willing to take the time to understand the issue yourself, then you cannot sit about saying "Well, that can't be true". (I note, for example, that you don't do any such thing for quantum mechanics, a much more "seemingly-incredible proposition"). In such a case you're going to have to rely on the reports of those who have taken the time to understand the issue. If people insisted on checking every counter-intuitive proposition for themselves, nobody would believe in general relativity. I think you're being quite inconsistent, here: You only apply this standard when the particular theory has political implications.
You then responded that
quote:More accurately, this standard is applied when people are attempting to make a case for an almost total overhaul of the way we live our lives.
So the implication here is that proponents of Global Climate Change science are attempting to make a case for an almost total overhaul of the way we live our lives.
While this may be true of some proponents of Global Climate Change science, it is hardly true of all or even most people who are arguing that the theory is compelling. The most common case people are trying to make is that Global Climate Change science is solid enough that we should be conserving energy, improving efficiency and accelerating research and development of alternative energy sources. Its true that if the science proves to be as compelling as it currently appears, we will need to do far more than these initial steps but very few people are making a case that the science is currently sufficient an immediate nearly total change in the way we live.
What's more, this debate is occuring in a global context in which many people are continueing to argue that Global Climate Change is a hoax and who oppose any response to the science on any scale. There are many people who promote life boat ethics. They seriously argue that responding to Global Climate Change will be so devastating to our current way of life that we should let everyone in Bangladesh die rather than make any changes. There are people who seriously argue that Al Gore's first book on climate change was promoting the same response as the Unibomber's manifesto which advocated we completely abandon the technological lifestyle.
In that environment your statement is indeed hyperbole. It implies two extremes. We either accept the theory and start living the dugouts like the unibomber or reject the theory and continue life as usually. Your statement seems to ignore the middle ground assumed by most proponents of climate change. The middle ground that says we should begin taking prudent action now.
If you live in Florida, evacuating every time a Hurricane forms in the west Atlantic would be foolish. But keeping an emergency 72 hour kit available and having a good family plan in case of a hurricane is only prudent. When scientists estimate that there is a 5% chance the Hurricane will hit your home, its still probably premature to evacuate but it would be a prudent time to fill the tank with gas, review emergency plans with the kids, and perhaps stock up on emergency supplies. If the estimate turns to 50% chance, then a prudent person starts to seriously consider evacuating and putting boards over their windows and the like. As the probability of severe damage increases, a prudent person will make bigger and bigger sacrifices to minimize the damage. There is a full spectrum of responses. It is not just a question of should I stay or should I go.
The same is true of global climate change. Maybe teh scientific evidence isn't compelling enough for you almost totally change the way you live but that doesn't mean its a hoax and we should not begin prudent action.
Perhaps we will need to almost totally change the way we live in response to our scientific understanding of what greenhouse emissions are doing to our planet. But not responding to the theory also has potentially catastrophic consequences. Your comment begs the question "What if we almost totally change our lives and it turns out the scientists were wrong?" I turn that question to you. "What if we fail to respond to scientists warnings and it turns out they were right?"
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was making a comment on human nature and the types of proof needed to cause someone to take action, Rabbit. Once again, you have no idea what my opinion is on the matter.
quote:What's more, this debate is occuring in a global context in which many people are continueing to argue that Global Climate Change is a hoax and who oppose any response to the science on any scale.
This debate is also occurring in the context in which "some proponents of Global Climate Change science" "are attempting to make a case for an almost total overhaul of the way we live our lives."
quote:Your comment begs the question "What if we almost totally change our lives and it turns out the scientists were wrong?"
No, it doesn't. It asserts that the greater the action demanded by a given theory, the greater the proof needed to get them to accept the theory to an extent sufficient to motivate them to react.
quote:I turn that question to you. "What if we fail to respond to scientists warnings and it turns out they were right?"
You are asking questions based on false assumptions of my attitudes and beliefs.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, it doesn't. It asserts that the greater the action demanded by a given theory, the greater the proof needed to get them to accept the theory to an extent sufficient to motivate them to react.
True. But I still disagree that this is the most natural interpretation of your original statement. Because you specifically referred to the most extreme actions which any one is demanding based on the current global climate change, you were presenting a very biased version of your current statement. You are an accomplished enough debater to know the result of choosing such an example in this case.
quote:This debate is also occurring in the context in which "some proponents of Global Climate Change science" "are attempting to make a case for an almost total overhaul of the way we live our lives."
Who aside from the Unibomber is making a case for a near total overhaul of the way we live our lives. This is an accusation I hear commonly from those who call global climate change theory a hoax but not one I've actually seen from the other side. I taught a class on energy resources last semester so I'm pretty up to date on the proposals that are out there and "an almost total overhaul of the way we live our lives" isn't an accurate description of what's truly being proposed its a straw man which has been built by those who oppose any change at all.
BTW, I don't consider a proposal in which we gradually reduce our energy use through increased efficiency and replace fossil fuels with alternatives over a period of 50 years to be "an almost total overhaul or the way we live our lives". While its true that this would result in substantial changes in the organization of our communities and our infrastructure over the next half century, changes of a similar magnitude have occurred over the last half century and will likely occur even in the absense of a climate crisis. In reality, all of the proposals I know of for dealing with greenhouse emissions are designed to preserve as much as possible of our current quality of life. If we do nothing at all to combat climate changes, the way we live our lives will change totally and certainly in far worse ways than if we take action.
quote:You are asking questions based on false assumptions of my attitudes and beliefs.
And what would that assumption be?
My question was intended to point out that while people generally require greater proof when greater action is required, most people will also act with less proof when the percieved consequences of inaction are great. My point was simple that people should ask both questions.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
[tangent]Does anyone else feel that Dag is engaging in a semantic game of putting his finger an inch away from Rabbit's arm and saying "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!"?
Dag, it seems like you keep making arguments, but then doubling back and saying you aren't making any definite arguments. It really feels like you're semantically dancing around, intentionally not saying anything solid so that you can come back and say "You have no idea what my opinion is".[/tangent]
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's the thing, the current spike in temperature is higher than it has been in the last 2,000 years. Though that is not totally signficant because the current Hot Age has been around for close to 15,000 years.
However, Hot Ages are very short relative to Ice Ages. A typical Hot Age, or more accurately an Interglacial Period, lasts roughly 20,000 years, whereas the typcial Ice Age or Glacial Period typically last 100,000 years. Once the Ice Age begins, the temperature steadily drops until if bottoms out, and then a new Hot Age will begin.
The rise to the Hot Age plateau of temperatures is usually relatively fast in geological time. The decent into an ice age usually starts with a dramatic drop followed by a slow decline. The little ripple in temperature we are now experiencing is nothing compared the extreme drop in temperature that results at the peak (or more accurately the bottom) of the Ice Age.
We are currently experiencing fluctuations of temperature of a degree or two. When the Ice age comes with it's fullest fury, temperatures will drop EIGHT DEGREES, and the Ice Sheets will easily reach down to the 45 degree Latitude. Which means that Bordeaux, France and Milano, Italy, and a vast majority of the State of Minnesota will be covered by ice sheet.
What precedes every Ice Age is an extreme upward spike in global temperatures, which consistently coincides with an increase in green house gases. That spike in temperatures consistently over the history of earth has started a long downward spiral into an Ice Age.
If we can soften temperature spikes, then there is a possibility that we can hold of the next Ice Age. Again, Hot Ages are short; typically 10,000 to 20,000 years, we are roughly 12,000 to 18,000 years into the current Hot Age. Ice Ages typically lasts 50,000 to 100,000 years. Believe me, we do not want to precipitate another Ice Age even though the span of active events is over thousands of years. Using current energy resources, the human race as we know it can not sustain itself though another ice age.
Now don't get me wrong, the human race will not be wiped out. But it will mean a HUGE change in life style. Subsistence Farming, and nomadic wandering in the southern regions will be common place.
Even if technology advances and we find some sustainable source of fuel to heat and light our homes, Canada will be gone, most of Northern Europe will be gone, most of the Northern United States will be gone, all covered by ice. That also means that those northern forests that we depend on are also gone. All that means huge population shifts to very small tracts of available land in the south (speaking as a dweller in the Northern hemisphere).
Of course, we need not worry, we will all be dead by then, but what we do now has an affect on how soon that happens. A spike in green house gases invariably causes a spike in temperature and when that is extreme enough, it causes the collape of the current Hot Age and a steady 100,000 year decent into the next Ice Age. Can we really afford to lose 50% of the worlds land mass for 100,000 years?
Global Warming is in itself a problem, but it is a minor problem compared to the long term consequences of an extreme upward spike in temperature.
posted
I am certainly not an expert on this issue, but I wanted to mention something I haven't seen brought up thus far. I'll admit that it's been a few years since I've done any amount of research on this issue, so it's also possible that I am misremembering or new evidence has changed previous theories.
With that disclaimer in place, it is my understanding that average global temperature increase is not equal across the entire globe. That is, the temperature has increased more in specific areas (closer to the poles) than in others (say, the equator).
Now assuming this is true, why is global warming always treated as an obviously negative thing? Since the Earth is hardly designed to support billions of humans and massive civilizations, it is entirely possible that changing the Earth's natural course could be beneficial to humanity's survival.
I can see a pretty obvious benefit from the tundras in Siberia and northern Canada increasing significantly in temperature.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't like the delineation into support or denial camps, though it's sometimes an efficient way to measure the debates about the subject which occur on the internet. Frequently.
Usually it's marked up too extensively, ramped into a view that posits that the other side is an 'extreme.'
- The supporters and scientists become doomsayers, and it's claimed that they are zealotically certain and want us to change our lifestyle completely and make profound sacrifices to our personal perks and and economy, and talk with dire certainty about how we're apocalyptically ruining the planet.
- The detractors and critics become ignorant brick walls who are steadfastly denying everything and refusing critical thought in their analyses, convinced that not even an iota of global warming theory is or could be true.
The reality is that both (1) and (2) are pretty rare and do not exist outside of the fringes of political thought. I've met both, and typically there's more wrong with a person in either category than just their inability to reasonably parse the real situation.
Yet, without fail, there's a significant quantity of people who like to describe their opposition as being predominantly like one of the two categories mentioned. It's a false categorization which does little to advance the debate.
But, it's not like there's much of a debate anymore. The scientific world is not actually anything like category one, but there's plenty they do know now. The climatologists aren't the ones who are doing the doomsaying, apocalyptic, mega-sacrifice talk, and they aren't the ones who are saying "global warming is FACT and it is a FACT that we know that exactly THIS and THIS will happen." Really, if you were to simplify the actual concerns and findings that they address, it comes right down to this:
1. Global temperatures are rising due to CO2 levels in the atmosphere. 2. Man-made (anthropogenic) factors are contributing. 3. It is disconcertingly evident that our anthropogenic influence could be creating a 'climate forcing' which can cause wide-reaching changes in our environment that are sparked by our CO2 output. 4. These forcings could create environmental repercussions which will most likely be more expensive and punitive to humanity than the cost of preventative action. 5. We should you know maybe do something about this probably kinda perhaps. Regulations on industry output seems like the most logical choice, if we want to limit or reverse the impact.
The findings are stark and clear and the presentations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are attempting everything in the power of language to assure people that there is not really any scientific controversy over the fundamental findings of climatological and ecological sciences, and it is the result of decades of exhaustive, empirical research.
Global warming is real. Really! And it's actually concerning, and we should do something about it. In the recent months, it has become extraordinarily hard to continue to be a global warming denier. Most people who still as of six months ago thought that the whole phenomenon was 'a load of crap' have fallen eerily silent or limit their continued disbelief to a series of 'roundabout' criticisms as it becomes more and more patently difficult to come to terms with the fact that ideology compelled them to listen to the wrong authorities on the matter. It's okay. You were wrong. You're also (hopefully) a grownup and can move on beyond this.
To all such parties I can only recommend that they grow up and catch up with the reality of the issue. There's plenty of things that we should be discussing, like the extent of possible damage, the feasibility of reform, and the effectiveness of different protective plans. The things that we should not be discussing are whether or not 'consensus' means anything (it does), whether or not these scientists really should be trusted (they should), whether or not global warming constitutes a threat to the well-being of the human species (it does), whether global warming is a hoax propogated by statists/socialists/hippies/ecofascists/anti-business types/whatever (it's not). Everywhere I go, there's at least a handful of people who clearly need to wash up and go home if they don't want to get their head in the game, because their contributions keep the discussions from being able to mature beyond basic levels. They stymie real debate. It's hard to have a substantive discussion about things like 'which mechanisms of the Kyoto treaty should be adopted into future binding economic agreements, and which ones are counterproductive' when a vocal cluster continues to be determined to drag the debate back down to 'global warming is a hoax' versus 'no it's not.' We should be years beyond ever having to return here.
A version of the same lecture should also apply to zealotic adherents of global warming lore. It's okay to question the extent of global warming's effects. For everything we do know now, there's ten times as much which is still a reasonable mystery! It's especially reasonable to call media hype into question, since there's lots of sensationalism in press and punditry that doesn't match the statements of science at all.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does anyone else feel that Dag is engaging in a semantic game of putting his finger an inch away from Rabbit's arm and saying "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!"?
No, the actual analogy is that Rabbit walked by while I was pointing at KoM and said, "Stop touching me." My response of "I'm not touching you" is merely an attempt to not be misrepresented.
I specifically chose to make a single comment about a general - and what I believed to be mistaken - statement about the nature of belief and changing belief. I intentionally did not engage the more specific question because, frankly, these things are NEVER productive here and they bore me.
However, the nature of changing belief and the self-destructive tactics of advocates who decide that those who don't share their view are irrational do interest me. KoM made a comment that underscores the reason why so many advocates do their cause more harm than good. I commented with a generality.
Rabbit can spout paragraphs about how this isn't really an almost total overhaul of the way people live all she wants.
The point is that people perceive it to be an almost total overhaul.
Why this is so doesn't matter for the purposes of my comment. KoM made a comment about why a particular standard of belief was being applied to global warming but not quantum mechanics. My reply was an explanation of the difference. He seemed perfectly capable of understanding my comment in context.
I'm so sick of the "semantic game" B.S. I participated not in the larger discussion of global warming but in the much smaller discussion of standards of proof.
quote:Dag, it seems like you keep making arguments, but then doubling back and saying you aren't making any definite arguments. It really feels like you're semantically dancing around, intentionally not saying anything solid so that you can come back and say "You have no idea what my opinion is".
No, I'm confining my discussion to specific aspects of the situation. Again, I didn't address Rabbit. There was a reason for that.
quote:BTW, I don't consider a proposal in which we gradually reduce our energy use through increased efficiency and replace fossil fuels with alternatives over a period of 50 years to be "an almost total overhaul or the way we live our lives".
Yes, but you also said that even if this were true:
quote:even in a worst case scenario in which we have to get by on the 10% of our energy resources that are currently coming from non fossil fuels resources
My statement would still be hyperbole. We're operating from such different definitions that reconciliation is impossible.
I don't really care. My original point was valid, it was interpreted in the way I intended it to be interpreted by the person to whom it was addressed, and it was specifically clarified based on a point raised in response.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe you would benefit from a block statement of position to clarify where you are coming from and where you are going with it, since these sorts of things are notoriously difficult to discern in games of quote-tag.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The effect something will have on you does effect the level of proof required before taking action (which means before forming a conclusion with sufficient personal certainty on which to base that action). This is perfectly rational behavior.
posted
The data has been put out here before: correlation of global temperatures to sunspot activity and to C-14 concentration; past warming periods; current global warming on Mars, Jupiter, and Titan. The evidence is strong that it's the sun that causes these temperature variations; but it seems unlikely that that the evidence has the power to resolve the debate. So let's consider instead: what will the world do, based on its beliefs?
We won't do anything to significantly reduce CO2 emissions until it becomes possible to do this without wiping out a significant chunk of the world's population.
We won't even do enough to risk economic slowdown. Parties in power lose power when the economy heads south, and they hate that. Kyoto would have caused a slight delay in CO2 increase -- that's all -- and America wouldn't sign that and Europe wouldn't comply with what it signed. If we won't do that, you can forget carbon taxes at levels that will have much of an effect.
So what *are* the options of those that adopt this theory?
1. Conservation, renewable energy: yes. Valuable things in their own right. It won't be enough to stop CO2 from increasing, though, until researchers find a magic bullet. Fortunately, these things are noncontroversial.
2. Raise consciousness. Makes people feel good about themselves, but it won't keep CO2 emissions from increasing.
3. Nuclear power. It works, we know how to do it, and it can deliver a lot of energy, so it can significantly reduce the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Why *wouldn't* global warming alarmists (I'd be happy to know a more polite term -- help!) urge the building of a lot more nuclear plants, and plead with their fellow environmentalists to stop suing to stop every proposed facility? Why aren't they doing it right now?
If human-generated CO2 poses even less of a risk than nuclear power, it must not be much to worry about.
When someone really thinks the hurricane's going to hit (using Rabbit's analogy), that someone doesn't discuss changes in tax structure and propose other people fund research into hurricane protection measures. He gets on the evacuation route.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Why *wouldn't* global warming alarmists (I'd be happy to know a more polite term -- help!) urge the building of a lot more nuclear plants, and plead with their fellow environmentalists to stop suing to stop every proposed facility? Why aren't they doing it right now?
Because Nuclear Power is a self-defeating game. It seems cost effective; you start it up and it creates heat, and the heat creates electricity. Just one small problem, a nuclear plant also creates deadly toxic waste that is going to remain deadly and toxic for at least 100,000 years.
Further, if there is an environmental disaster related to the storage of toxic nuclear waste, the results will probably be more devistating that all the wars in modern history combined. It will poison the earth for 1,000 lifetimes.
I simply do not trust man to be responsible enough to manage deadly nuclear waste for 100,000 years.
Of course, there is a solution, let us build a EXTREMELY large warehouse just a few blocks from where you live, and the world can store this deadly poison there? What do you say?
posted
A nuclear plant doesn't create much such waste, particularly if it is allowed to reprocess fuel (unfortunately, this also creates significantly more weapons-grade material).
I have no idea what environmental disaster would cause such a catastrophe. I suppose if we stored the fuel inside of an active volcano an explosion could spread the waste over a considerable distance, but beyond that I've got nothing. Nuclear waste, provided people are kept away from it and it is prevented from going to people, is harmless. Even if some leakage, such as into the local water supply, occurred, the harm would only be to people in the immediate vicinity; it wouldn't even be as horrible as a single battle in many wars.
If we reprocess, the half-life is reduced too, so it won't last anywhere near 100,000 years. Heck, most modern waste would only be near its highest level of radioactivity for another 1000 years: http://www.uic.com.au/wast.htm
On what do you base your assertions about some disaster related to nuclear waste being able to cause such devastating results? I have never seen a similar assertion based in fact.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I would give up every beautiful sunset and sunrise for easier breathing.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
