70 replies to this topic

[greywolf]

I've been thinking about global warming for some time now, weighing all the factors in my head about if it's real or not, and, if it is a danger to humanity (if it is real indeed). There has been a lot of controversy over whether it is or not, and, at least in America, it has become politicized to the point where it's almost politically incorrect to say that it is false (state meteorologists are losing their jobs over this). My questions to you are in the poll, but I want to know why you think so.

The UN has come out with an official report that essentially states that man is responsible for the 1C spike in global temperature over the last 100 years because of rising CO2 emissions which cause the greenhouse effect. Scientists and meteorologists have both supported and ridiculed this theory, although it seems to me that a majority of scientists support the CO2-temperature relationship theory. Another theory has been released recently, one that states that the temperature fluctuations of the sun have far more to do with the temperature of the earth than man's CO2 emissions.

Personally, I think that it is also necessary to look at events happening outside of the scientific debate and look at the champions of the "green" cause. Al Gore, former US vice president to Bill Clinton, recently made a documentary about global warming, called An Inconvenient Truth, and has been touring the country in private jets calling on people to reduce their carbon footprint. Hollywood has backed him, along with many other music and varied celebrity personas, and is helping him to try to get the word out to the general public. The media seems to have latched onto this cause as well, and promotes global warming as the earth's most dangerous crisis that must be dealt with immediately, and tends not to report on the other side of the debate as much (in America at least). Personally, I think it has at least something to do with the culture of fear theory, and would like to hear some opinions on that as well.

A fairly popular radio talk show host (again, in America), Glenn Beck, has recently made the observation that the global warming culture seems to resemble Catholocism in the Middle Ages - specifically with regards to the selling of indulgences. There are organizations that will give you "carbon credits" in return for money which they use to ship eco-friendly ovens to African countries and the like. Connect the dots, and you have a shifting of wealth from wealthy 1st-world nations to smaller, 3rd world nations who are exempt from Kyoto, and thus don't have to pay extra money to remain eco-friendly. Socialism, anyone? (Specifically, check entry #3 in the dictionary reference.)

If you couldn't tell by now, I'm highly skeptical of man-made global warming, but do believe the earth is on a warming trend, which happens to be a natural cycle probably caused by the sun. Tell me if I'm right or wrong.

[Japofran]

I think you're right. I don't have time for this discussion right now since I'm having a great time messing with virtual machines just for the heck of it, maybe I'll contribute later. Plus I had the very same discussion through e-mail recently. For the time being, here's a goodie, an article by Newsweek from 1975, you probably heard about it (PDF): **giggles**

http://denisdutton.c...oolingworld.pdf

[Potatoe]

Global warming is not fake and humans are causing it(with some other factors). It's a scientifically proven fact. End of story. Reversing IS possible to some extent, but we need to start acting soon.

[BeefontheBone]

The point about it is that while we don't know if it is possible to reverse climate change, if we don't do something to try now, then it definitely won't be. Even if it turns out to be a futile effort, that's no reason not to try.

[Juni Ori]

First some criticism about options: far too few. I voted "Yes, but humans have little to no impact to it" and "No, and why would you want to do so?" because they are closest options. First of all, humans do have an impact to it. As well as many other life forms - however they don't have artificial tools helping them. So the first option should really be "Yes, but humans have only some impact to it". We do not know all the factors influencing global warming, and we don't know how much different things effect.

Second, I'm not very sure how much we should try to actually alter our ecosystem - and reversing the global warming would be big alteration. However, trying to minimize our own effect I find acceptable and reasonable. If it would lead to global cooling - which it most likely wouldn't do - it would be okay with me.

I find it very hard to believe that we'd have so huge impact to ecosystem, that we should take the fate of our ecosystem to our hands. Same goes with preserving the nature and different species. I find it mostly naive to try to preserve some creature that was doomed to extinct far before we influenced them. Of course we have caused extinctions in many places, but we are not the only ones. Strongest species do overrun weaker ones. And human seems to be the strongest at the moment. Excluding smallest lifeforms. Viruses, bacterias etc.

[Doubler]

Largely I agree with Juni.
Yes, I do think it's a problem, but I also think our influence is greatly exaggerated. I suspect the impact of humanity on this event is more of an escalation then a cause.

That said, it's obvious not only from our possible effect on global warming that the path we're taking now is simply unviable. Whatever worth you describe to single problems, the whole is a lot harder to deny. Action has to be taken in light of the full picture, and I suspect no action we take will never be sufficient if we keep focussing on treating single symptoms.

And that's what I'd call the really naïve position: That we can make all problems go away in time and that we'll find solutions to all individual things we're facing at the moment and in the future. The problem is one, the effects are many.

Oh, and Juni, humanity is a bunch of cheaters using haxxorz

[Japofran]

Okay I'll say a couple of things, but I can't get involved in a discussion because installing OS/2 2.1 (6 Mb RAM + 386 or higher recommended!!) and my first Linux in a virtual machine is too much fun. I'd quote the discussion I recently had through email but it's in Spanish.

First, I voted "Yes, but humans have little to no impact on it." However it wasn't quite what I wanted to express. No informed person denies that the climate is changing, but what people don't understand is that there has always been climate change since Earth exists. In other words, global average climate has never been stationary and only a person with no scientific culture whatsoever would expect a stationary climate to be the natural thing, it's not and it will never be.

As for human influence in the current evolution of climate, it was hypothesized 20 years ago and it yet remains to be proven, on the contrary it's flimsier every passing day. If your argument is "but what if it was true after all", say it but at least don't claim you've got scientific backing. If science was what we can't be completely sure of discarding, instead of what we are reasonably sure to know, the existence of God would be the most immovable scientific truth.

The UN report itself, as militant as it is, is only able to state after all those years of government-funded biased pseudo-research --actually all money is spent on propaganda campaigns-- and the supposedly scientific backing that it's "very likely" that humans are influencing the climate. The UN also issued another report admitting that cows' farts caused more global warming than the transport world-wide (not kidding). The report itself admits that although the Arctic is melting Antarctica is freezing. Yet in the news you'll always hear about Greenland and never about Antarctica. Well only some centuries ago, when the Vikings colonized it, Greenland was a green land with far warmer a climate than nowadays, what human activity had caused that global warming, far more pronounced than the one we've been experiencing in modern times?

A single, exceptionally powerful volcanic eruption can raise the CO2 global level way further than all human activity to date, it has happened before and it will happen sooner or later. During earlier ages the CO2 level was ten or more times higher and nothing bad happened, life flourished and global climate simply continued evolving to what we have now, as will naturally continue evolving in the future. Right now there are reports that Mars is getting warmer just like the Earth, what would suggest that global warming is due to solar activity. Of course it's not a scientific proof per se, but still it has much more scientific value than most of the "sinners repent and believe the End is near!!" climate change funded propaganda.

The PDF I linked before is worth reading because it gives much needed perspective. During the 70s global climate was cooling and it was hypothesized that it was due to human activity; to make ends meet the culprit wasn't the CO2 but aerosols. If you read the article you'll see that it was just the same pseudo-scientific hysteria as now, look at the kind of adjectives used. You had the same dumbfounding, non representative "facts" that sounded very convincing to the uninformed but had no scientific value, the same state-run prestigious organizations backing the nonsense, some guy even suggested artificially melting the arctic to stop the dreadful human-caused global cooling that would starve us all in a matter of decades. As the article says it was stated that global cooling increased the frequency of floods and droughts, heat and cold waves, etc., and now it's claimed that it's global warming what causes that. The same kind of non representative data were quoted then and are now. And the only difference between the global cooling "theory" of the 70s and the global warming one of the 80s is that during the 70s the earth happened to be cooling and since then it has been getting warmer. And yet it can't be argued that both opposite effects were caused by human activity, but whatever happens naturally will be blamed on it. If it started a cooling trend again, the pseudo-theory of global warming would be scrapped and the cooling one would be revived. Anyway until the people who claim that global warming is caused by human activity don't explain why the global cooling of the 70s happened, with all that CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere and having been pumped in the past, they can't be taken seriously.

[Tulac]

The Climate is changing, what can we do about it? Adapt.
Still I think that lowering emissions of CO2 is good for the humankind, whether or not it's the leading cause to climate change. Higher CO2 emissions in cities, industrial area is cause of many diseas, it is also a reason (or was it CO) for acid rain which has destroyed many of the Eastern Europes forests because of the pollution from western Europe. Today the effect is not as large because in the EU people have become more eco friendly (filters and modernised eco-friendlier plants were built, old polluters closed). And if there is a chance that we're causing a climate change, or making it faster than it would naturally be, now is the time to act, at least to make better for our future and make our environment cleaner to live in.
Investing in Nuclear energy is one of the ways out, much less polluting than solar and wind energy(although not commonly known), and much safer than any chemical plant you have in most large cities.

[Japofran]

Acid rain is caused by SOX and NOX, not by CO2. But if we were talking about acid rain --and that's real pollution-- the main culprit would't be the USA, but China. CO for its own part is nothing except highly toxic and lethal at moderate concentrations. CO2 is inocuous, and it actually stimulates plant growth. I agree on nuclear energy, this auto-inflicted ban on its use is very bad for us.

[DeathDude]

Well I could type up what I think, but instead I'll just post an E Report I did on this very subject (although more related to environmentalists, which links in to the discussion)

http://media.putfile...-Enviro-Edition

[taikara]

This is a great topic, though I agree with Juni about the limitations of the poll.

I voted "Yes, and humans are causing it," and "Yes, and we need to do so soon." However, I tend to agree with Juni and Doubler about our impact being greatly exaggerated - though I don't believe that our impact is so negligible that it should be ignored, either. I believe that humans, with our tools and scientific advances, break the natural balance of the global ecosystem and are indeed throwing it out of whack. Are we (or our children) going to die any time soon because of it? I don't think so.

Regarding reversing it - that's not going to be feasible any time soon. In order to reverse it, we would have to use our science to mimic that natural balance to tie up the loose ends we've thrown into our atmosphere.  While we have the chemical know-how to do so at this point, biological and ecological factors are still a large unknown, and we have no way of knowing how a large-scale attempt to "aeroform" our atmosphere would affect the planet as a whole. The fix could end up being worse than the problem if we just bulldozed ahead with it.

We should be focusing on reducing our effect, though, which will buy us time to learn enough about the complexities of a global ecosystem that we might be able to do something about it (or at least fully understand the consequences of what we are doing). Our number one priority should be focusing on alternative energy sources that produce less harmful gasses and other toxins. There are currently cars in development (and in at least prototype stage) that run on hydrogen and produce water as a byproduct via electrolysis. There are also "green" fuels available, made from plant products rather than fossil fuels. Unfortunately, these technologies are still unavailable to the public, and/or prohibitively expensive.

As for Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth," I'm pretty annoyed by it - not because I don't think it's important, but because I don't think it's that important in current global context. It seems to me to be a liberal temper tantrum in response to their general ineffectiveness in the situation our country is in at the moment. It's like a child who doesn't get candy at the store, and in response, later throws their food on the floor during dinner at home. It's a cry for attention, and worse, it's working.

As unfortunate as it is, there are far more immediate threats to be worrying about at the moment, and global warming is one of those things I'd rather not hear about on the platforms, as it wastes everyone's time. We're all aware (or should be) at this point that our impact on the global ecosystem is Not Good, and it should be a given that all parties want to do something about it. I'd rather hear about plans for infrastructure reform or how to boost our standing in the international arena. You know, the stuff no one even partially agrees on.

Hearing liberals say, "We need to stop global warming and save the planet for our children!" is like hearing Miss America say, "I plan to spend my time as Miss America working towards global peace!" It sounds nice, but it's totally meaningless jargon - Miss America can't bring about global peace any more than liberals can stop global warming. Big Oil lobbyists make certain of that, too.

Leave figuring out how to fix the problem to the scientists who might actually have a chance of fully understanding what the problem actually is. A brief mention of how much money you plan on investing in the research is all that's really needed.

[Tom Henrik]

@Tai





That's all there is to say

[BeefontheBone]

I disagree - if everyone says "well, there's nothing I can do about it, it's a drop in the ocean" then why the hell should anyone do anything which doesn't directly benefit them? American "liberals" are often, by everyone else's standards, relatively conservative - this is a product of a political system in which the only way to gain any sort of power is to court the middle ground, relying on the votes from the further left or right voters (depending on your party) who have no viable alternative choice and which requires a vast quantity of cash which can only really be raised (by the time you're campaigning for president) with the help of big business, whose interests are inherently conservative.
You can't "leave everything to the scientists" when making a difference requires an effort from an individual level right up to an international one. Al Gore has (gracefully, I'd say) accepted not gaining the position he sought despite winning the popular vote, and is spending his time using his profile trying to get something done about an issue he feels passionately about - if that qualifies as a temper tantrum, toddlers everywhere are onto a good thing in my book. You can stick your fingers in your ears as much as you like, but the earth's climate is changing, and in a generation or two's time it's going to have a significant impact on humanity - if you don't want to be ready for that, I pray (or I would if I thought there was anyone to pray to) there are enough people out htere who do.

[DakaSha]

as far as i know  the planet would be heating up without humans as well. there are ice ages and there are hot as all hell ages.

thing is that humans chose a *crapola*ty *money-maker* time to get all industrial and we probably are speeding it up quite a bit. so yes i think that the whole issue is probably exagerted but uhm... GOOD

we arnt even doing *crapola* about it even though it is exagerated so i think its good that fear is being put into people... it should be alot more i think. fact is that our impact will change earth to a very unpleasant place over time. whether thats 20,50 or 500 years doesnt matter. we should be changing crap now so that we dont have to reverse anything.

and yes i am a happy little tree hugger and i think its terrible that the planet and its whole eco system is going down the drain because we suck so bad.

btw to the people who act all cynical about it i give you a flat out: *meep* you.

[taikara]

@BeefontheBone: I'm sort of hoping your post wasn't directed towards me, because if so, I'm seeing a lot of words put in my mouth. I never said we shouldn't do anything about it, I said that we should. I never said it wasn't a problem, or that it wasn't important, I said that it is a problem, and is important.

However, what I did say is that I'm tired of it being used as a platform by politicians when there are more pressing issues to discuss. As I said, I think it's fairly universally accepted that global warming is a bad thing.

I believe you also misread what I said about scientific research. I never said that we should "leave everything to scientists" - I said that scientists should be looked to for possible solutions, rather than politicians (or individuals, for that matter), due to the fact that scientists are far more likely to understand the effects any potential proposed solutions may have on the global ecology, as well as being able to figure out just how much we humans do actually impact said ecology. I'll repeat: all I need to hear from a politician regarding global warming is how much he intends on funding the research.

And a couple side notes: if you really believe that Al Gore's involvement in this documentary wasn't in some small way a PR move, I think that's a bit naive.

In addition, I find it a bit hypocritical of anyone who benefits from the things that contribute to global warming to point fingers at others and accuse them of apathy. Unless you're willing to go live in a hut in the middle of the wilderness, away from anything touched by industry and the pollution it causes, maybe you should keep your hands at your sides and out of other people's faces. Believe it or not, many people care more than you think, it's just that some of us don't feel the need to make others feel like crap about their own choices.

@Dakasha: The closing of that post is uncalled for. I'm hoping that it was in general, and not actually directed towards anyone here, though that's only slightly better. Consider yourself warned.

@Everyone: I realize this has the possibility of being a heated issue. However, if anyone continues in the same vein as the last post, consider this topic closed. You can disagree all you want, but there's no need for that kind of thing.