quote:The fact of the matter is that we don't know and there are respected scientists on both sides of the debate.
This is very mis-leading. As a scientist involved in environmental research, I do not know of any respected experts in atmospheric sciences who do not agree that global warming is a serious concern.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, then why was I just at Ornery reading about the growing ice shelf in the Antarctic? It looks to me like the northern hemisphere is warming a bit while the southern is cooling.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A brief google shows that John Christy was respected enough to be interviewed by NPR and that a couple of guys from the University of Colorado and Columbia University wrote
quote:From the standpoint of science, however, the debate is a draw. We have learned much more about climate over the past decade, but arguably we are no closer to gleaning the future state of the climate. The relationship between human activities, the atmosphere, and indeed the global environment is much more complicated than scientists had thought. Modeling historical climate has proven hard enough, but accurate predictions of future climate — decades or more hence — remain out of reach.
a few years ago. Neither of those is exactly a bastion of conservative thinking, so it seems unlikely that these people are corporate shills.
You are asking us to merely take your word, Rabbit, that everyone who disagrees with you is a crackpot, and, though I'm certainly willing to concede that you know more than I about the present subject, I am not ready to do that.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, she spoke about atmospheric scientists, not scientists in general. Are these atmospheric scientists?
Second, well-respected enough to be interviewed by NPR is gibberish; well-respected refers to their stature as a scientist, no their skill in public relations (which is pretty much all that's needed to get interviewed by any news organization).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
John Christy is virtually a lone voice in the atmospheric. Although he is a professor of Atmopheric sciences, virtually everything he publishes is highly controversial and almost immediately refuted by a dozen or more respected atmospheric scientist.
If you read John Christy's scientific articles you get a very different picture than if you read his testimonies and address to the media. In the scientific literature, Christy and his collaborators routinely state that they do not dispute the reality of global climate change -- they are simply dispute the magnitude of the change which has already occurred.
You will have to give me more information on the "guys from Colorado and Columbia", but when there are 1000 or more scientific studies that suggest global climate change is a concern for every one that disputes the claim -- I wouldn't call the debate a draw.
As for expansion of the Antartic Ice sheet, all I can say is that this is actually anticipated by many of the models that predict global climate change as a result of human green house gas emissions. It is generally expected that over the next few decades the Antarctic ice sheet will either remain constant or grow because increased snow in the Antarctic will offset melting due to increasing temperatures.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, I suppose you'd prefer I reference the Cato Institute, then?
Rabbit is over here making general claims about the beliefs of an entire field of study and you want to get in my face over an adjective and that I reference NPR?
Whatever.
Rabbit,
names are Pielke and Sarewitz and they are from policy centers, so I don't know if they are actual professors or scientists. Thank you, though, for actually addressing what I wrote.
My point is that we can't all be experts and we can only go by what we see. With a modicum of research, I perceive there to be controversy, and where there is controversy, there is, of necessity, disagreement. Obviously, with enough searching, I can find people with "scientific evidence" that the earth is a few thousand years old, so grains of salt need to be plentiful.
quote: The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) is a four-year comprehensive scientific assessment that was established and charged at the Ministerial meeting of the Arctic Council in Barrow, Alaska in the fall of 2000.
..an independent group of over 225 international scientists and other experts from over a dozen countries..
The IPCC’s Third Assessment Report summarized the evidence that the Earth’s, and more particularly the Arctic’s, climate is changing more rapidly and persistently than at any time since the beginning of civilization. While some climate changes reflect natural variability, careful investigations of the strength and patterns of change indicate human influences are responsible for most of the changes since the mid-20th century. As projected both by this Assessment and the IPCC3, these climatic changes are the largest and are being experienced most intensely in the Arctic region. For example, over the past 50 years, the average temperatures across the Arctic have risen by nearly twice as much as the global average with some parts of the Arctic region experiencing much greater increases. That unusual changes are underway is indicated by increases in surface and oceanic temperatures, an overall increase in precipitation that is more evident in some sub-regions of the Arctic than in others, large reductions in sea ice and glacier volume, increases in river runoff and sea level, the thawing of permafrost, and shifts in the ranges of plant and animal species.
1. Arctic Climate is Warming Rapidly and Much Larger Changes are Projected:
2. Warming Across the Arctic and its Consequences are likely to have Major Implications for the Entire World:
3. Impacts from the Projected Shifts in Arctic Vegetation and Changes in the Biosphere:
4. Animal Species’ Diversity, Ranges, and Distribution are Likely to Change:
5. Thawing Ground Will Disrupt Transportation, Buildings, and other Infrastructure:
6. Indigenous Peoples and other Residents of the Arctic are likely to Face Major Impacts Due To Climate and other Environmental Changes:
7. Climate in the Context of other Changes across the Arctic Region:
This is part of the document that McCain used in his statements.
So whoever posted the article "McCain Refuted" is refuting the work of 300 international scientists on a 4 year project.
I'll stick with believing the study.
Posts: 2756 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jim-me -- get in your face? I'm just pointing out that being mentioned on NPR or not is essentially irrelevant to his scientific credentials, which you seemed to imply. This is quite relevant. As for the Cato Institute, its been my experience that while their personal thought is often fairly refined, they have an unfortunate tendency to pick and choose support and supporters.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:even news sources like NPR acknowledge that there is a debate over the issue.
News sources, even NPR, are not peer reviewed science. The people who report are not trained scientists and have little capacity to judge the veracity of any scientific source. If you want to read unbiased science, go to the peer reviewed scientific journals, go to the major scientific societies, go to major scientific conferences and you will not find a heated debate over global warming. Even the scientists touted by the CATO institute and other biased groups, don't debate the validity of global warming within the scientific community.
For example, the American Geophysical Union is the premier international society dealing with Atmospheric and Geological Sciences. It has over 41,000 members (membership is only open to professionals in the earth and space sciences) in 130 countries.
The conclusion of their statement of Human Impacts and Climate Change reads.
quote:The global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change.
For a scientific society, that is a very unequivocal statement and would not be endorsed by the society if there were a series debate over the reality of global climate change.
posted
One thing that bothers me about this whole debate is that it's kind of like Pascal's wager.
We may be talking about ordinary atmospheric variability, in which case, there's nothing to worry about, and if we cut back on CO2 (etc) emmisions, there's still nothing to worry about.
On the other hand, we may be talking about a global climate change caused by the release of millions of years worth of stored carbon which could result in a runaway greenhouse effect that could wipe out life as we know it. And if we cut back on CO2 emissions, we could prevent that from happening.
I know this sounds alarmist, and of course there are many possibilities that fall between the two extremes, but the fact remains: It wouldn't hurt to limit hydrocarbon consumption. So why don't we do it?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I understand things correctly, the main argument against limiting hydrocarbon consumption is that doing so would adversely affect the world economy.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I know. But from where I sit, the economy is a human construct, whereas the environment is real.
Also, from a U.S. viewpoint, we are dependant on foreign oil, to the point where we are starting wars. If we use the technology that now exists to reduce that dependance, this should improve our economy. Only the oil companies would suffer. Of course, as far as the oil companies are concerned, they ARE the economy.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair, although the economy certainly is a human construct, it does have very real effects on people. And it's not just the oil companies, really. There are a lot of associated industries as well that would feel the effects of legislation to reduce hydrocarbon consumption. For example, the automakers industry or the power generation industry. Somewhat tangentially, the food production industry, as most motorized farm equipment runs on gas or diesel. In the long term, I would think that most industries would recover by investing in new technologies, but the initial outlay to develop these new technologies could have a significant effect on the economy in the short term.
Personally, I think we should be working to get away from hydrocarbons as fuel, but these are the arguments.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Has anyone ever done a serious study of how much CO2 is contributed by the respiration of animals?
About 4% of greenhouse gases (in the form of methane and CO2) are caused by cowfarts (Actually outgassing of cattle manure). No kidding.
In answer to your question: yes, the respiration of animals is a significant factor in CO2 balance, and it is an important factor in the models.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Somewhat tangentially, the food production industry, as most motorized farm equipment runs on gas or diesel.
Not tangientially at all. I used to have a chart (dang I wish I hadn't lost it) that gave how much oil (in calories of energy) is used to produce how many calories worth of crops and livestock.
quote:Has anyone ever done a serious study of how much CO2 is contributed by the respiration of animals?
The greenhouse gas problem associated with fossil fuels is not caused becaues fossil fuels are the primary source of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere. CO2 in the atmosphere comes from a variety of sources with the respiration of living organisms, and the degradation of dead plants and animals, and volcanoes. CO2 is also taken up by plants as they photosynthesize and the ocean. This process is known as the global carbon cycle.
Normally, this cycle is in balance. The CO2 taken up by photosynthesis and the ocean, very nearly match the CO2 emitted by living organisms and volcanoes. As a result, over hundreds of thousands of years the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have changed very slowly.
Fossil Fuels have been out of the global carbon cycle for millions of years. When we burn them, we are upset the balance in the global carbon cycle. Plants and the oceans are unable to keep up with the increase in CO2 emissions. As a result, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing at a rate hundreds of times faster than it has increased in the past 200,000 years (the record available through ice cores). CO2 concentrations are now ~25% higher than they have been at anytime in human history.
There are many pieces of evidence that confirm that this increase is due to the burning of fossil fuels. This data is extremely strong and is not questioned even by dissentors like John Christy.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've worked with a lot of industries, and I have a fair idea of how changes in technology affect the economy of an industry.
When we introduced oxyfuel combustion to the glass industry, they went for it, because they have to rebuild their furnaces about every 8 to 10 years, and rebuilding without regenerators saved them millions of dollars. The capital cost alone was worth going to the new technology, but they also saved fuel cost, and reduced their CO2 and NOx emissions by a large factor. The downside is that the alkali vapor in the furnace atmosphere is higher, so furnace crown life may be somewhat reduced, but I left the industry before any furnaces had failed as a result.
The electrical industry and the sewage treatment industries both have the same problem: for political reasons, they can't get permits to tear down old equipment and build it over with new technology. They want to, but the "Not in My Backyard" attitudes prevent them from getting new permits. The result is that they keep the same old technology and keep on polluting, because the facilities already exist. They actually spend more in repairs, cobbling old furnaces along rather than giving them a total overhaul.
This is one place where I actually agree with Bush's policy (although I disagree in motive) because he wants to clear the way for power plants to re-permit to build bigger plants, and by the way, they could use "clean coal" technology (oxymoron). In reality, they do need to be able to re-permit, but bigger plants only mean we get used to higher energy use. What they do need to do is build more efficient plants, to use less coal per KWatt/hour, and "cleaner coal" technologies (one of which I helped develop).
If it's done right, we should wind up producing substantially less pollution, and probably slightly more electricity, better distributed. That won't hurt industry.
The automotive industry likes selling SUV's, because the markup is higher than it is on cars. But I don't think the breakdown would really hurt them if they had to build more high mileage cars. Or for that matter, hybrid SUV's (I'm waiting to see if the ford escape hybrid is a winner). If they lose markup in one market, they can just raise prices in the rest of the market. People aren't going to stop buying cars.
As far as home heating is concerned, the furnace industry would really benefit if we had a major effort to replace any furnace over 20 years old with current technology. And that would save a huge amount of oil and natural gas. Likewise, the current boom in housing could actually help in that regard. Old houses are notoriously inefficient. My house was built in 1959 and had absolutely no insulation in the walls, and only 2 inches of mineral wool in the ceiling. Probably R-5 or less. Current housing is built with R-33 in the ceiling, and R-19 in the walls, along with modern efficient heating systems. Want to supercharge the housing industry? How about tearing down all the houses built before 1980 and build new efficient houses. We'd save tons of oil, reduce CO2 emmission by more than half, and the construction industry would be ecstatic.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Retrofitting insulation into buildings would be more energy efficient. It takes energy to make new building materials, and energy to build.
Then consider a housing boom, and carpenters/plumbers/etc buying newer&bigger trucks/homes/televisions/stereos/computers/etc with their new found riches. And the energy it takes to build those new products.
The problem is we are evolutionarily born for poverty, and so have a tendency to gather, then hoard everything we can. Darn near everyone I know who's over 30years old has bursting closets, cabinets, and drawers. About half of those with two-car garages can't even park one car in it cuz of accumulated junk. And still we buy, and buy, and buy, and buy...
posted
Jim-me, perhaps you didn't read the recent article that found a disturbing amount of "show both sides" bias in news reporting? It basically found that news organizations would go out and find people who said some opposing thing, and present it on an approximately equal level, in order to appear unbiased, when in fact the issue was considered closed by 99.999% of experts in the field.
For instance, the famous special presenting the arguments by the skeptics about the moon landings (by Fox, I believe). All their "evidence" was presented, but not the complete refutals of every single bit of it by scientists and others, and the moon landing was framed as being in at least some slight (but not miniscule) possibility, a hoax.
I can still find "scientists" who say speciation hasn't occurred, even though we have witnessed examples of it. I can still find "scientists" who tell me that skimobiles wouldn't have a negative impact on national parks -- despite direct counterevidence in those instances it has been allowed.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:With a modicum of research, I perceive there to be controversy.
That's the whole problem. You've done a modicum of research, I've spent 20 years in this field. I am not just some hack making off hand claims. I am a professor who is involved in studying air pollution. I have been reading the scientific literature on global warming for 20 years. I KNOW the field.
There are literally thousands of scientists around the world, with expertise in atmospheric science, who maintain that global climate change is a serious concern. There are perhaps a dozen who say it is not a concern. That isn't a draw. That isn't even a controversy. That's as close to concensus as the scientific community ever gets. The overwhelming perponderance of evidence is that global climate change is a significant concern.
The media tends to talk to one scientist from each side, creating the impression that there is equal merit on both sides -- there simply isn't.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
My experience with people though, tells me that people don't want to hear bad news, especially if they have to give something up as a result of it.
That's what you're really fighting. It drives me nuts when people say we shouldn't reduce greenhouse emissions because it might not really be a problem. They're just rationalizing. And not doing a very rational job of it.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that we should reduce greenhouse emissions. However, we need to have an as accurate as possible accounting of the costs. ANd not just economic costs - we will be decreasing one risk at the cost of increasing other risks. This cost accounting will require information from many other fields of expertise than just atmospheric scientists.
We need to an examination of the tradeoffs of alternate energy sources, and this examination must take into account that we will have to accept some bad attributes of some energy sources, whether the problems be nuclear waste, increased particulate emissions from bio-fuels (which do release CO2, but not CO2 that's been fixed for millions of years), possible damage to migratory birds from windmills, possible disruption to wildlife habitats by solar energy farms, or what have you.
I also want to know if we are offsetting an iceage by causing global warming.
The economic costs must be accounted for, because economic disruption WILL cause harms to the environment and to human lives. Psychological and sociological issues have to be examined, such as the village commons phenomenon. My big worry is that knowledge has gotten too specialized for us to be able to take a comprehensive look at the situation.
posted
I think it's really sad that nuclear power in the U.S. was killed by concern for the environment. It seems that this concern did us much more long term harm than good. I would like to see a return to using nuclear power for almost all of our electrical generation. That would go a long way toward cutting greenhouse gas emissions without causing the very bad effects on the economy and ability of our civilation to support the existing human population. (I'm assuming that any scenario in which 9/10ths of the population has to die off is not a viable option?)
Volcanism, too, contributes a huge amount to the total global CO2 equation, as I understand it. And over that we have no control at all, do we?
A third approach that interested me was the possibility of making up for higher CO2 emissions by cutting way down on methane emissions, which is a greenhouse gas of far stronger effect than CO2. Is that true, Rabbit? I have a very imperfect memory of what it was I read about that prospect.
If you'll notice, I haven't been suggesting windmills, etc. Just a shift to more fuel efficient versions of existing technologies. For that matter, just turning down thermostats and air conditioning. (See the New American Holiday thread)
I leave things like windmills out of the equation for exactly the reasons you state, i.e. that we need to be aware of the unintended consequenses, so we should make a study of it before we go full bore into some newfangled thing.
Tatiana,
I agree on nuclear power. Not that nuclear power is innocuous, but we seem hyper sensitive to the dangers of nuclear power, and completely oblivious to the dangers of fossil fuels. With Nukes we are smart enough to keep the genie in the bottle, while we send coal emissions into the air as if it just goes "away." Where is "away"?
I heard once that there has been a greater increase in background radiation due to the release of carbon 14 from coal combustion than all the radioactive release from Nuke plants. That statistic may have been from before Chernobyl, but the point remains: even coal is radioactive.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glenn, I know you didn't. And it's clear from your posts you carefully consider things.
I like the steps you suggested, but they at best only help global warming. We'll have to confront many of the same issues to handle the oil peak. The problem is none of the complexities get reflected in politics at the national level, by either side.
I consider energy a national security issue, and if we dealt with it that way I suspect we'd achieve massive greenhouse gas reductions.
quote:Arctic People Seek Tropical Team on Global Warming Thu Nov 25, 8:55 AM ET Science - Reuters By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent REYKJAVIK (Reuters) - Arctic peoples aim to team up with tropical islanders in a campaign against global warming, arguing that polar bears and palm-fringed beaches stand to suffer most. The proposed alliance between some of the hottest and coldest parts of the globe would lobby industrial nations like the United States, which had refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol (news - web sites) on global warming, to cut emissions of heat-trapping gases.
What's weird is that it seems Bush does see it as a national security issue (except that he denies that was why he invaded Iraq), except that he seems to view it exactly the opposite of the way you and I see it.
Bush and Cheney have both used the quote "you can't conserve your way to energy independance" as an argument in favor of drilling in the arctic wilderness. I mean, this statement is absolutely false, by definition of the word "conserve."
I can see why someone would want to explore for oil there, but their justification is bogus. And from a national security standpoint it's in our best interest to consume all of the oil in the mideast before we exploit our own resources. Waiting to explore for oil helps guarantee that we'll have it later when we really need it, and may also help flatten the peak of "peak oil."
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Polar bears are also by repute the nastiest most vile-tempered kind of bears in existence.
They aren't bears. They're related to minks.
If that's the case, why are mink of the genus Mustela, while polar bears (like black bears, grizzly bears, and brown bears) are of the genus Ursus?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: My point, Fugu, is that even news sources like NPR acknowledge that there is a debate over the issue.
I'd like to point out that many news sources have 'acknowledged that tehre is a debate' about creationism and evolution. Which, basically, just ain't true - there's some crackpots in the US shouting very loudly, and then there's the rest of the world.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a show of their commitment to preventing global warming Shell have moved their headquarters to The Hague (on the coast, below sea level), the Netherlands.
It wasn't really a commitment to preventing global warming but the black comedy amuses me and I wanted to share it.
Posts: 571 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Raise your hand if you drive a hybrid car! No? Raise your hand if you don't even own a car and use foot power and mass transit! No? Raise your hand if you've contributed to an environmental organization that works to address environmental issues! No? Raise your hand if you purchase wind energy for your home! No? Raise your hand if you considered how your job impacted the environment before accepting it! No? Raise your hand if you buy food that was grown locally and sustainably! No?
Look, the people at the top, regardless of party affiliation and degree of disregard for the environment are not the most responsible parties. We are. Change at the national level will not occur until it is politically viable, and it will not be politcially viable until most of us think it's a good idea and is pertinent to our everyday lives. Which, given the number of elderly people and children dying every day from respiratory ailments, it is. So go turn down your thermostat and call your congressperson and plant a tree next spring.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I have read, two major themes seem to keep coming up concerning the Kyoto Protocol.
1) Those that have signed it are not abiding by it. (Maybe we should just go along with western Europe and sign it and then not follow it to appease the Eskimo & Pygmy protestors. --said tongue in cheek)
2) Its effectiveness is questionable and the cost/benefit ratio is absurd.
Perhaps the most visual indicator of the effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol is shown on the following site, <a href="http://www.junkscience.com">Junk Science</a>
Dag just now, and OSC in his essay on the subject raised some questions that many would be interested in hearing the answers to.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love it when discussions get bogged up by people who'd rather rattle around with the terms being used in the discussion. Looove it.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
You and I live in the country with the largest per capita environmental footprint in the world. If we want to do something about this, we're the ones who have to start making sacrifices.
Added: I should make clear that Teshi and I are both Canadian, since I don't expect that's common knowledge.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfortunately, in regards to #1, we're kinda out of luck. My understanding is that according to our constitution, treaties have the force of law in the United States. We don't have the choice to follow it or not if we sign it. Now one might think, what if we sign it, don't follow it, and nobody tries to enforce it...Can anyone see today's environmentalists passively ignoring the Bush Administration being in major noncomplience with their precious *gollum* Kyoto Treaty?
I have two issues with the Kyoto treaty, specifically it's major advocates.
1. The most ardent advocates of the Kyoto treaty are on the far Left, specifically the Green Party and the Moveon.org fringe of the Democrat party. Okay, that doesn't kill it totally for me, even a stopped clock is right two times a day, and I once saw a Lyndon LaRouche statement that made sense and was probably right. But, the means and goals by which these people purport to save the environment range from very socialist to outright communism. (After all, we all know that the USSR was the greatest example of conscientous environmentalism in the modern world, followed closely by the PRC.) Here's my point - it seems to me that these people's real goal is the advancement of socialistic principles and that they are riding the environmentalist issue in order to achieve it. Their unwillingness to consider other alternatives that might be more workable and capitalistic clinches it for me. I am not saying that they don't truly care about the environment, but what I am saying is that I believe their merger of goals causes them to be blind to other alternatives and unwilling to question the validity of their evidence.
2. My second problem is with the computer models that they cite. My undergrad degree is in computer science, and one thing that I learned is that a model is only as good as the math underlying it. If the equations that they enter are flawed (and they might be, they are based upon theory - to my knowledge there aren't mathematical laws in environmental science that are as sure and proven as D=RT, for example) then the data that is returned is flawed. Second, the information that they enter into their model might also be flawed as well. Garbage in, garbage out. Now, I'm not saying that I know this for sure. After all, some of the most powerful computers in existance run these models, and many of these scientists are brilliant minds. But it doesn't matter how powerful your computer is if your equations are faulty, and it doesn't matter how smart your scientist is if they allow their ideology to affect their integrity, however slightly.
So, for me, I am suspicious because of the overt and extremist politicization of the issue, the unwillingness to consider a wide spectrum of resolutions, and the unwillingness to consider other explanations for the data. I'm not saying that they might not be right anyway, but what I am saying is that they have not proven either the truth of the problem nor the superiority of their professed solutions to the alleged problem.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tern, superiority over what? What kind of solutions are being rejected in favor of the ones that you find politically suspect?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't name all of them, because I don't know them...but I think that working with businesses instead of against them would be a good start. I think that if they injected a little realism into it, they might find some better solutions. I think also that if they worked to find solutions that people would naturally want, they would be more successful. I'm not talking about "raising awareness" - to me, that's virtually meaningless and useless - but instead of trying to think that they can change society's attitudes, find solutions which work with people's current attitudes. For example, they push mass transit, but they ignore the fact that many mass transit systems are not fully utilized and that many people find them inherently unworkable for many reasons. I rode the bus for many years, so I know of what I speak here. Another example are hybrid cars. I watched "The Day After Tommorrow" on it's premiere - won't get into it's fallacies - but what I remember is that the whole theatre broke into laughter when Dennis Quaid drove up in his goofy hybrid car. Most people wouldn't want to drive such a car. Instead of harping on how SUV's are evil (and alienating most SUV owners by default - they aren't all evil Republicans), present a superior product. Some car companies are coming out with hybrid SUVs - I think Lexus has a nice one. Now, that's a solution which might work.
Use market forces. Use capitalism. Use tax incentives. And yes, I know that some of these things are happening, at least to some extent. However, the people who are putting these into production aren't the people who are fiercest about global warming. Take a look at the Green party, Let's All Be Poor And Miserable Together. Do they seem to be people who would embrace using capitalism to save the environment? But aren't they the Green Party? Well, even some of them have taken to referring to themselves as the Watermelon Party, Green on the outside, Red on the inside.
What I find politically suspect are the solutions which amount to saying that socialism is the best or only way to fix the environment.
And hey, perhaps it is. I rather doubt it, but I suppose it's possible. My point isn't that I think they are wrong, it's that they haven't convinced me. And I just can't shake the feeling that their goal of socialism is stronger than their goal of preserving the environment.
posted
So you're suspicious of environmental claims because you believe most environmentalists are socialists, and you dislike socialism?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Part of it. I don't dislike socialism so much as I find it unworkable in RL. However, if it was the Far Right, you know, the Ann Coulter/Rush Limbaugh people pushing their solution in the same way, I would be as skeptical of them as I am of the Left.
To clarify, it's not just that I disagree with their political philosophy, as it is that I believe that their political philosophy influences their view on global warming and their solutions to global warming potentially to the detriment of the actual issue. Even more, I believe that their ideological biases are so strong as to affect their reliability.
The other part of it is that I remain unconvinced of the accuracy of their computer models. You're very computer knowledgable, Tom. What do you think the probability is that enough equations are incorrect enough in a simuation of the environment, which is very complex, as to render the computer models questionable. I'm not saying that they are definitely wrong, but I am saying that there is room for doubt.
I'm getting more skeptical as I get older. When I hear studies and surveys and scientific papers, I ask, what is their proof? How solid is this? What are the potential fallacies? Is it possible that they are relying on the probability that I don't understand their science to push conclusions that the evidence doesn't support? Does the individual(s) presenting this have a bias of any type which could concievably affect their results? Lastly, do their conclusions, their applicability to the real world, and their proposed solutions jive with my understanding of the world?
I am open to the possibility that I might be wrong. That's why I'm not dismissing all of this out of hand. However, I remain unconvinced.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The argument "there have been cooling and warming trends in the past, we're going through one again" totally ignores the impact of humanity on the world.
Those warming and coolings trends don't include the vast deforestation of carbon sinks, which greatly effect change in the climate and environment. They don't include a rapid increase in greenhouse gases over a period of less than 200 years, especially combined with a decrease in carbon sinks. Those to me are extremely important factors when talking about climate change, especially if you go with the "naturalist" view of things.
As for the hole in the ozone layer, the creep of the hole over the south pole is reaching into populated parts of South America, causing a very high way above average number of skin cancer cases in people there. I was under the impression that it was common knowledge that unfiltered ultraviolet radiation was in fact a bad thing.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I would like to see a return to using nuclear power for almost all of our electrical generation. That would go a long way toward cutting greenhouse gas emissions without causing the very bad effects on the economy and ability of our civilation to support the existing human population. (I'm assuming that any scenario in which 9/10ths of the population has to die off is not a viable option?)
