[QUOTE=Biggles;171143]Actually, predicting changes and results over a long time in a larger system is often easier than predicting changes and results over a very short time in a very small part of that system.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but only by simplifying said system and thus rendering it much less accurate to the point of being just good enough to indicate a trend that can be used or misused to support anyone's point of view. It is also true that it's a huge undertaking to keep track of that vast amount of data and to make sense of it all.
There are several super-computer projects around the world that work on the problem of global climate and weather forecast, and the resolution of those systems has been increased with the added computational power over time. It is my impression that it has become very quiet around those projects lately, I wonder why, because they may be critical in making future decisions regarding climate change.
I'm not a believer of [B]only[/B] applying hard science to this global problem, it's also a socio-economic problem. If you don't get the support of the people, you won't get far with science alone. Even if we, who can afford to become environmentally friendly and if we would do so tomorrow, we would not be enough to reverse the damage done. There is some urgent re-thinking of our globalization strategy that needs to be done.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE=Stingray;171145]There are several super-computer projects around the world that work on the problem of global climate and weather forecast, and the resolution of those systems has been increased with the added computational power over time. It is my impression that it has become very quiet around those projects lately, I wonder why, because they may be critical in making future decisions regarding climate change.[/quote]
Probably because those simulations take months to years to run. Science goes in fits and bursts, unfortunately.
[quote]I'm not a believer of [B]only[/B] applying hard science to this global problem, it's also a socio-economic problem. If you don't get the support of the people, you won't get far with science alone. Even if we, who can afford to become environmentally friendly and if we would do so tomorrow, we would not be enough to reverse the damage done. There is some urgent re-thinking of our globalization strategy that needs to be done.[/QUOTE]
This is (partly) why I advocate applying the precautionary principle. There's little point in reducing our society/life styles back to the "good old days" when everyone lived in huts and was a subsistence farmer, like some of the more extreme environmentalists wish (that would require killing off about 95% of the population), nor should we expect those in less fortunate countries to do remain in that state. But at the same time, we can neither expect the entire population of the planet to be like we currently are, and nor should we allow people to cheerfully do as they wish without regard for the environment, since that effects the wider society.
So scientist are wrong if they get to gather when asked by the UN.
... Iraq war, UN right America wrong.
Just because America ignored the UN doesn't make the UN wrong.
Your opinion is based on what you want the truth to be. Looks like something presented by Faux. Theres a guy who thinks the pyramids were made by poring dirt to make stone too.
You can think there wrong but you don't have the knowledge to do anything but parrot what a very few real scientist think. Anything more then that is just making things up.
The side I parrot has worked there way up from a few to a vast majority.
Sense when is science a popularity contest? That statement means you don't know how science works.
My friends don't like B5 It's because there lesser people.
I'm assuming you haven't followed the science on man made global warming from a few people to a vast majority.
What scientist do we chose to believe? It doesn't work like that.
For a board that follows a Science Fiction show I'm surprised at the level of knowledge of how science works.
[QUOTE=Chaosed;171162]So scientist are wrong if they get to gather when asked by the UN.
... Iraq war, UN right America wrong.
Just because America ignored the UN doesn't make the UN wrong.[/quote]Your point? They're still irrelevant, and they're still wrong.
Take it from this angle: if the scientists the UN hire release one finding, nothing changes, and everyone goes home. If they release another, all the little countries have yet another reason to pile onto the US and demand reparations for it causing all of their problems. Which finding do you think they're more likely to encourage?
This is especially ironic when you consider the fact recent studies indicate that these developing nations produce much higher concentrations of pollution than the US does. After all, they don't have the money to set up "clean" factories and power plants, and they don't have governments forcing such things onto them like the US does. It's just more fun to pile on the country with a higher standard of living and demand your share.[QUOTE=Chaosed;171162]Your opinion is based on what you want the truth to be. Looks like something presented by Faux. Theres a guy who thinks the pyramids were made by poring dirt to make stone too.[/quote]And your opinion is based on what you want the truth to be. You formed an opinion long ago, and now you listen to sources that agree with you and tune out or belittle those that don't.
Have we made any progress by saying that to each other?
In this discussion, I'm not going to cite a source that says man is causing irreperable harm to the biosphere, and you're not going to cite a source saying that all is well with the climate.
What's your point?[QUOTE=Chaosed;171162] You can think there wrong but you don't have the knowledge to do anything but parrot what a very few real scientist think. Anything more then that is just making things up. The side I parrot has worked there way up from a few to a vast majority.
Sense when is science a popularity contest? That statement means you don't know how science works.[/quote]Perhaps it is you who does not know how science works? Science can only [b]disprove[/b] things. What you get from scientific experiment is not proof that your hypothesis, or guess, is accurate, but merely the consolation that your guess has not been disproven. If it has, then you make a better guess, and try to test that.
Many of the [b]scientific laws[/b], or guesses that have stood the test of time and all those who sought to disprove them, we hold dear today actually started with a lone voice speaking against a long-held majority opinion. Who knew that alpha particles would penetrate gold foil? There were even scientific writings including caloric, the inivisible liquid that is the cause of heat, up until the 20th century. That theory lasted a hundred years. If, back in the 19th century, someone were to bring up the theory of heat and its merits, and you shot them down merely because the theory of caloric was the most popular belief at the time, you'd look like a moron now.
Hence, my comment about science being a popularity contest. Your main argument so far as to why my opinion is invalid is that you perceive your beliefs to be supported by the majority opinion of scientists. Is that true, or is it merely supported by the loudest or most well funded?
Not too long ago the University of Rochester released findings indicating that the Earth is not heating up, but is in fact cooling down. That's just what I can remember off the top of my head at 1 AM. I'm sure there are more I haven't heard about. Doom and gloom just sells too well, increasing the signal to noise ratio. Besides, according to you I'm not allowed to listen to this source because it doesn't agree with the majority opinion of the scientific community. Or rather, what you perceive this majority to believe. [url=http://forums.firstones.com/showpost.php?p=170989&postcount=44]Those guys at U of R are just scientists. What do they know?[/url][QUOTE=Chaosed;171162]My friends don't like B5 It's because there lesser people.[/quote]Please tell me that's just your attempt at quoting me without using the quote button. Or extreme sarcasm. That works too.[QUOTE=Chaosed;171162]I'm assuming you haven't followed the science on man made global warming from a few people to a vast majority. What scientist do we chose to believe? It doesn't work like that. For a board that follows a Science Fiction show I'm surprised at the level of knowledge of how science works.[/QUOTE]Again, I'm much more convinced that you don't know how science works, especially when politics becomes involved.
I've given you some reasons why I believe what I believe. You can accept that I have valid reasons for believing what I believe, just as I accept that you have valid reasons for believing what you believe (even if I disagree with it!). Or you can continue to paint me as ignorant and misguided under the guise of making a scientific argument. It's your choice.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE=Vertigo_1;171178]Your point? They're still irrelevant, and they're still wrong.[/quote]
I don't think you've stated [i]why[/i] the report is wrong yet.
[quote]Take it from this angle: if the scientists the UN hire release one finding, nothing changes, and everyone goes home. If they release another, all the little countries have yet another reason to pile onto the US and demand reparations for it causing all of their problems. Which finding do you think they're more likely to encourage? [/quote]
I think you're attributing the UN with a little too much consistency, single-mindedness and competence. :p The reports are also not created by the UN; the IPCC was created by the UN Environment Programme and the World Metoroligical Organisation but isn't a UN department that follows security council policy or anything like that.
There [i]are[/i] issues with politicisation of the IPCC. The summary reports (which are all anyone who isn't a climatologist ever bothers to read) are reviewed by governments (outside of UN processes), not just scientists, for some bizarre reason that I don't understand. However, this doesn't make their findings totally guided by governments aiming for a report that says "what they want us to think," particularly as governments are not involved in the first 3 reports that are used to make the summary.
The IPCC also doesn't do any actual research. They make literature reviews. All they do is summarise existing peer-reviewed research. If they tried to leave anything significant out or unfairly bias an incorrect paper (so as to, say, skew the result) they'd get hammered. Their 3rd report, for example, relied heavily on data that was later shown to be incorrectly interpreted. Their results are also generally pretty conservative (probably due to the influence of governments during report drafting).
[quote]This is especially ironic when you consider the fact recent studies indicate that these developing nations produce much higher concentrations of pollution than the US does. After all, they don't have the money to set up "clean" factories and power plants, and they don't have governments forcing such things onto them like the US does.[/quote]
This part is, unfortunately, true, and is the major problem with the Kyoto Protocol: countries like China and India are excluded, despite China being right behind the US in CO2 output, and likely to overtake soon if they haven't already. What little the 1st world nations can achieve is likely to be irrelevant if 1/3 of the world's population is pouring pollution into the atmosphere at the worst levels of the 20th century.
[quote]In this discussion, I'm not going to cite a source that says man is causing irreperable harm to the biosphere, and you're not going to cite a source saying that all is well with the climate.[/quote]
Neither of you have cited much at all yet, just stated lots of opinions. One source each, by my quick skim of the thread. ;)
[quote]Not too long ago the University of Rochester released findings indicating that the Earth is not heating up, but is in fact cooling down.[/QUOTE]
Climate change can include cooling down, too, and that would be just as bad for us as heating up. The crops and animals we rely on like a very narrow range of temperature, which we've been within for the very brief time during which our civilisation has grown beyond a few small tribes in Africa. The media likes their "Global Warming!" catchphrase, though.
[QUOTE=Alaric;171182]I wonder what advice the civilisation that used to exist on Easter Island would give us....if they hadn't caused their own extinction.[/QUOTE]
Um, they didn't go extinct. They just left when they ran out of resources.
[URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/vtveen/369742373/"]Chile - Easter Island, Hanga Roa[/URL] (which is located on the westernmost tip of the island: [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Easter_Island_map-en.svg"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Easter_Island_map-en.svg[/URL])
[QUOTE=Biggles;171179]Neither of you have cited much at all yet, just stated lots of opinions. One source each, by my quick skim of the thread. ;)[/QUOTE]As I've said before, I'm not trying to defend my opinion, I'm defending my right to have it and not immediately be written off because I hold it.
Conformation that you don't understand how science works. Ventigo1
An opinion is based on being informed. JMS.
I know about global cooling. It was something to be concerned about. I understand how it worked I understand why it is not a concern for now but may be in the future.
I know the Earth has evidence of being covered by ice, in total, twice. I understand why it isn't currently covered in ice.
Now, the panel concluded that it was at least 90% certain that human emissions of greenhouse gases rather than natural variations are warming the planet's surface.
[QUOTE=Chaosed;171222]Conformation that you don't understand how science works. Ventigo1
[/QUOTE]
I must respectfully disagree. Why I do so has already been covered better by others. I've stayed out of this debate because I'm not all that great at refining my thoughts into arguments, but I feel I must jump in and state that just because your opinions do not match up, your personal stance holds greater legitimacy. We're talking about a subject in which we as a species have a very limited understanding of, making a great deal of leaps and assumptions (guided by our personal or public bias) in attempting to fill the gaps. Going back to my original point, I see nothing that indicates Vertigo 1 possessing a poor understanding of science (or the system in which it operates).
And while your link provides one perspective on matters, there are countless other research groups that provide their own differing interpretations, many of which carry some large measure of credibility. The link you provided manages to present a story ranging from a trivial increase in temperatures to what almost seems like an end of the world story. While it may be accurate given what information it was based on, I don't have the study in front of me and cannot make any educated statements until I do.
I feel everything goes back to what croxis said some time earlier: Global warming is not a matter of "Is it happening," but rather [B]to what degree[/B] and whether or not this delta is influenced (and if so, to what extent) by humans. I simply do not believe we have enough information to properly understand that particular aspect yet.
At the same time, I believe in the precautionary principle with logic liberally applied and with convenience in mind. Is my doing x going to be better for the environment than y, and how is it going to affect my life? Will I have to spend three times as long cooking dinner? each night? Will my cost of living rise or drop if I open the windows and harness the sunlight? Trivial examples, I'm sure, but they are perfect examples of everyday activities that could impact the environment in some small way.
Sanfam, it is the saying science isn't a popularity contest. That is what science is.
Rate now the oldest law of science, more then thousand years older then science may be proven wrong.
When enough scientist conclude it to be wrong, a majority (I don't know the % needed) that law will be dropped.
Biggles said it best with the pear review.
Too many people treat science like religion. That could get us all killed.
The people, scientist, who investigated the phenomenon think there is enough evidence to say Humans make it worse. The work is done the report is in.
This is the same as the corporations that kept studying cigarette smoking and the people who said it wasn't bad for there health. The are still millions who think smoking is good for them.
This isn't something people get to believe what ever they want to.
[QUOTE=Chaosed;171240]it is the saying science isn't a popularity contest. That is what science is.[/QUOTE]
I know that it's not as popular in classrooms as it used to be. :D
[QUOTE]Too many people treat science like religion. That could get us all killed.[/QUOTE]
That would be the so-called uneducated people. Science is not about what you believe, it's about what can be experimentally proven. There is method to the madness. I always crack up when I hear the expression of someone not "believing in evolution." There is nothing to believe, evolution is not a religion or a flavor of the month. Granted, evolution can only be proven to the point where the dots of the historical record get connected, since there is no way to experimentally reproduce it, at least not that I know of. :D
Death is overrated. Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out of it alive.
[QUOTE]Statistics is the science I have problems with.[/QUOTE]
I'd say the problem lies with the samples they choose to use, not the maths involved. :D
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE=Chaosed;171240]Sanfam, it is the saying science isn't a popularity contest. That is what science is.[/quote]
No, it's not. It may turn into that sometimes when experimental results are lacking, but it's not meant to be a popularity contest. Science is about what theory best fits the facts we have and the experimentally-derived results. When experimentally-derived results are lacking, there are no scientific laws, only one or more (usually conflicting) theories.
Climate change fits into the area of lacking experimentally-derived results, and so individual scientists' interpretations tend to lead to them having conflicting conclusions about what data we do have.
Science is a way of knowing, a way of evaluating knowledge claims using very specific parameters. The "stuff" of science comes about through this method. I often remind people that the very process used to model and discover and predict the theories and properties which are used to create and build the very computer you are using is the same process on evolution and climate change.
Yes quantum physics is much more easy to experiment with than planetary climate systems, but the very people who love and trust their gizmoes for entertainment or to save their lives do not trust the process which came to the conclusion about evolution or global warming is a level of irony which drives me to tears.
[QUOTE=croxis;171216]Last I heard US 1st amendment freedom of speech does not extend to privately owned internet forums.[/QUOTE]So true. However, the moderators have created a climate here in which you can describe and defend nearly any point of view, so long as you remain civil.[QUOTE=croxis;171216]Also, just as much as you have a right to hold an opinion another has just enough right to write you off for having it.[/QUOTE]Trivializing those who disagree with you merely because they disagree with you tends to undermine any sort of rational discussion. It's certainly within one's right to write someone off for what they believe, and even to express this.
However, I feel that expressing this here goes agains the spirit of the community the moderators have attempted to create here. Saying, for example, "People who believe X are ignorant!" does nothing to foster productive discussion. Instead of arguing the merits of their viewpoint, we've devolved into generalizations and personal attacks. It adds nothing to the discussion, and only adds the potential to derail it further.[QUOTE=Sanfam;171237]Going back to my original point, I see nothing that indicates Vertigo 1 possessing a poor understanding of science (or the system in which it operates). [/quote]Thank you!.[QUOTE=Sanfam;171237]At the same time, I believe in the precautionary principle with logic liberally applied and with convenience in mind. Is my doing x going to be better for the environment than y, and how is it going to affect my life? Will I have to spend three times as long cooking dinner? each night? Will my cost of living rise or drop if I open the windows and harness the sunlight? Trivial examples, I'm sure, but they are perfect examples of everyday activities that could impact the environment in some small way.[/QUOTE]I wholeheartedly agree. However, at what point do we ask the government to step in and force greener practices on our neighbor? Do we regulate what kinds of vehicles people can own and drive? Do we regulate how often they use them, and how far they go with them? Or is this whole environmental issue another reason for the government to attack "big business"? This is especially bothersome if it becomes more financially feasible for a business to outsource its manufacturing to a country without such restrictions, costing domestic jobs and foreign pollution.
Very well thought out post, in general.[QUOTE=croxis;171261]Science is a way of knowing, a way of evaluating knowledge claims using very specific parameters. The "stuff" of science comes about through this method. I often remind people that the very process used to model and discover and predict the theories and properties which are used to create and build the very computer you are using is the same process on evolution and climate change.
Yes quantum physics is much more easy to experiment with than planetary climate systems, but the very people who love and trust their gizmoes for entertainment or to save their lives do not trust the process which came to the conclusion about evolution or global warming is a level of irony which drives me to tears.[/QUOTE]The difference here is that you can run an experiment, complete with a control group, to determine the effects of, say, electricity on semiconductors. The means to reproduce these experiments is within the means of most interested parties.
Even if we could predict what the climate will be like in fifty years with complete certainty, we still wouldn't have a control group to compare it to. We can't rewind the planet four hundred years, prevent the industrial revolution from happening, and then go four-hundred fifty years into the future to compare the results. There's no opportunity to take man out of the system and observe it as a control.
We can start shaking our heads at people for not holding your view on climate change when this view is as universally accepted in the scientific community as, for example, general relativity. It stands up under scrutiny from scientists with experimentally-derived results. There are no such results for this issue and there is no generally uniform consensus be ignorant of.
Attacking something with the scientifc method does not guarantee results. See string theory if you don't believe me.
[QUOTE=Biggles;171253]No, it's not. It may turn into that sometimes when experimental results are lacking, but it's not meant to be a popularity contest. Science is about what theory best fits the facts we have and the experimentally-derived results. When experimentally-derived results are lacking, there are no scientific laws, only one or more (usually conflicting) theories.
Climate change fits into the area of lacking experimentally-derived results, and so individual scientists' interpretations tend to lead to them having conflicting conclusions about what data we do have.[/QUOTE]I wholeheartedly agree.
Even the physical sciences deal with experiments with no control groups. The age of the planet, space phenomenon, plate tectonics, relativity, evolution by natural selection, all were developed without the "classic" control-experimental group scientific method. We teach that this is how science is done to our children but this isn't really the case. This so called scientific method is only just one protocol for [i]creating[/i] knowledge, not evaluating it.
Evaluating knowledge claims using science is a bit more boroad than that. The first step is asking if the model is natural. Then is asking if the model is testable. This includes observational testability as well. Those two tiers alone separate science from other ways of evaluation such as by authority or tradition. The third level has several questions of relativly equal importance: Parsimony; the most economical explenation is perfered, Scope; The more phenomenon the model can explain the better. Fruitfulness; The model which builds on previous knowledge the best is also prefered.
If there 100 of the best scientist work on something that might change the world for the worse.
90 of them say it is real.
10 of them say it isn't.
I'll stick with the popular group.
In the beginning it was only a few people. It was hard fought with science to convince people to be worried.
But the 10 have lost. It is time for action.
California mandates florescent bulbs. Second hand smoke kills. And everything else were there is a consensus but some still say no.
It's up to the side that lost to prove there point. The winners have, well, won.
Two colleges combine to make one. Both are good on a number for a minority. Once combined there no longer good on that number.
Statistics. EEEEK!
You are welcome to your decision to stay with the majority, Chaosed, but it just continues to demonstrate how you have misunderstood the nature of science. 90 of those 100 may indeed believe in the bad thing, but just because there are more of them [B]does not[/B] make them the correct side. One should not side with the majority simply on the grounds that it exists, but should attempt to use the information out there to make their own stance.
Can you believe that a majority of people used to believe that the Sun and the stars all revolved around the Earth? Seems silly in this context, but I feel the meaning is better emphasized through an absurd example.
I also feel that the craze for fluorescent lights is simply trading one short-term problem for another longer-term one in an effort to [I]look[/I] green now, but that's a subject for another thread. And while I abhor smoking and can't begin to tolerate the vapors, I believe it has not been demonstrated or even proven in theory that second-hand smoke actually kills. But again, another thread.
[QUOTE=Sanfam;171301]90 of those 100 may indeed believe in the bad thing, but just because there are more of them [B]does not[/B] make them the correct side. One should not side with the majority simply on the grounds that it exists, but should attempt to use the information out there to make their own stance.
Can you believe that a majority of people used to believe that the Sun and the stars all revolved around the Earth? Seems silly in this context, but I feel the meaning is better emphasized through an absurd example.
[/QUOTE]
While I see your point, I disagree with your analogy. We don't live in those medieval times anymore (some might disagree with that, but that's for another thread), where those 90% were made of clerics who didn't really want to let anybody mess around with the establishment and didn't know that much about the science involved. I do agree that there are agendas behind certain points of view and they can and often do conflict with science when financial considerations are involved.
Some say that even though the ice is melting now, it will refreeze later on as the Earth climate has a tendency of trying to find some kind of equilibrium, so the current situation may not necessarily be such a big deal as some fearmongers are making it to be. Again, I'm all for being reasonable and considerate of the environmental consequences of us being on this planet but I don't want to turn back the clock and renounce on all the modern amenities just because the ice is melting.
At Orycon I listened to a climatologist give a talk. He stated that there are three major events that could be caused by global warming that would be disastrous for the human race, if not for much of life.
1) The frozen methane on the ocean floor melts causing a runaway greenhouse effect.
2) West or East Antarctic ice sheets collapse causing massive ocean rise.
He said at this point the data indicates these two probably wont happen.
3) The currents which keep the Pacific Northwest and much of Europe warm will stop from the increasing cold freshwater from the melted ice.
He said we do not know when this one will happen yet. You may not want to give up an amenity here or there just because some ice melts, but I don't want my area to be covered in a mini ice age just because one ice shelf collapses.
The whole point of the Kyoto protocol was not to solve global warming, but to delay the events caused by it for 10 years. Our understanding of Earth's systems have improved greatly over the past 20 years and another 10 would give us even greater understanding and time to learn things -- such as seeding the seas with iron is actually a bad idea.
Stingray, perhaps a better analogy would be one involving the many "modern" medical practices to come up in the past hundred-plus years that turned out being significantly more harmful in the long run than the symptoms they attempted to treat. Science, at the time, supported these through majority rule until the next medical fad came along. I'm sure someone better informed in the larger history of science could easily pull up dozens of far superior examples, but this is among the best I can do on short notice.
Sure, nature is self-healing. But how do we know that nature is going to heal into the way [B]we[/B] want it to be? The environment has never been "static" for long periods of time and change is the only true constant. While I'd much rather the human race be something significant, it really isn't. We've only been something worth noting for just about three thousand years (perhaps only two?). That's barely We have technology, but that means nothing in the grand scheme if we only end up dying off due to changes in our habitat and making way for the next dominant form.
Is climate change real and the fault of mankind? I'm open to the possibility but I'm not convinced.
The planet, and life on it, has survived far worse in the past and will survive far worse in the future than what we *may* be doing to them today. Our civilization, should it wish to survive (and I believe it will), is going to have to get used to the fact that the climate changes. Sometimes it might change because of our activities, and sometimes it will change due to forces beyond our control. Sooner or later, as long as we are on this planet, the Human race will have to survive an ice age, will have to survive a severe warm period, and will have to survive in the relatively comfortable climate we currently enjoy, and it will have to get used to it.
"Sustainability" is a myth which we will never achieve. Throughout our history we have moved from one unsustainable power source to another, and we will continue to do so. Oil will become more expensive and it will continue to be used for another century, as new supplies in the North or South or any other damn place are exposed by possible changes in climate. It does not matter what Europe or North America do. It does not matter if those two continents cut their emissions to zero right now. Emissions from countries like China and India will continue to grow with each new automobile and each new coal fired power plant they build, and the situation will continue to get "worse" regardless. This is what WILL happen, and no piece of paper or South Pacific conference is going to change it. The environment will change sooner or later and people will adapt. Cities may have to be moved, as they have been moved due to changes in sea level throughout history. Alternatively, new resource possibilities may be opened up in Northern and Southern regions.
This will all be expensive. People will die. It is, however, what is going to happen. People want cars, and homes, and ovens, and electric lights. People everywhere want these things, and they will have them, and the massive surge of that want will not be abated by Al Gore or David Suzuki or any other person. The rhetoric of these people will sway some, but not most. It will not sway China, who builds a new coal fired plant every week and who's cities are smothered in suffocating air pollution that would be beyond tolerance in the West. It will not sway India, who's still rising population begins to flex its economic muscle and industry with modern amenities. It will not sway Mexico or South America, who's populations don't even think about energy consumption and who currently don't recycle a shred of trash. Don't even get started on the Middle East, who's Saudi Princes drive sports cars into the desert, to be picked up by helicopter when they run out of gas. The speeches and warnings barely register with rich nations, most of whom signed onto the pointless Kyoto treaty but have paid mere lip service to its enforcement.
I'm not saying I want all of this to happen or even that I believe for sure that the climate will continue to suffer, but either way very little is going to change in the next century. We can't remove the carbon from the atmosphere if we wanted to, and we are not going to stop emitting it. People are going to drive, and planes are going to fly, and million-gallon burning boats are going to sail, and nothing anyone says is going to stop that. The Human race will push forward as it's doing now, and it will continue to push forward until the next ice age, and then we'll have to figure out how to survive it. Maybe we'll start pumping CO2 into the atmosphere on purpose to warm the planet, as the environmentalists scream at us for letting the frogs and caribou die, and demand that something be done!
As oil prices rise rich nations will move to greener, eventually cheaper power sources. It will take decades and decades. Regardless of what some people would *like* to happen, this is what's *going* to happen. My hope is that 5 years from now the global temperature will have dropped another degree or a half and we'll all be laughing at Al Gore and the rest. Unlike some people, I'm not convinced we're even capable of "killing" the planet if we deliberately tried. Nothing's ever succeeded before, and as Sanfam said, we're just not that damn important.
I don't believe that frogs will die out, the French will see to that because frog legs make for a tasty supper or so I've been told. :D Otherwise I agree with AlecM.
[QUOTE]Stingray, perhaps a better analogy would be one involving the many "modern" medical practices to come up in the past hundred-plus years that turned out being significantly more harmful in the long run than the symptoms they attempted to treat.[/QUOTE]
That's more like it, Sanfam. If there's one field of study that sucks more than global climatology, it's medicine (anything related to computers comes in third). :D
Anyway, there's currently a huge sized bloc of ice breaking off the IIRC western coast of Antarctica and you know what, it doesn't bother me as much as would the news that the arctic circles are moving towards the equator.
The universe is a rather cold place and we are living on a rock with liquid water and a thin layer of air which just happens to be at the right temperature to allow life to flourish. We may not be able to afford to get much warmer, but we certainly wouldn't survive another ice age. Where would we get the food from? How would we be able to keep warm? How many would die in the process?
The other thing that everyone seems to keep out of the equation is the continuing growth of the human population and the consequences thereof. What good is it going to do us to use energy-saving appliances if the Chinese and Indians keep reproducing like rabbits? We may be heading into a situation more pressing than CO2 emissions. (And I don't mean smelly diapers...) As we saw in Tibet, the Chinese aren't afraid to act either.
[QUOTE=Stingray;171316]As we saw in Tibet, the Chinese aren't afraid to act either.[/QUOTE]
Don't you mean "as we didn't see"?
We'd survive an ice age, no problem. Not everyone would, of course. Huge numbers of people would die, but we would survive. Humans survived the last one, barely, and I'd like to think we're moderately better equipped this time.
[QUOTE=Alec M;171318]Don't you mean "as we didn't see"?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, well, you know what I mean. :D
[QUOTE]We'd survive an ice age, no problem. Not everyone would, of course. Huge numbers of people would die, but we would survive. Humans survived the last one, barely, and I'd like to think we're moderately better equipped this time.[/QUOTE]
Oh, yeah, with nukes and toys just like that. I'm not so sure our odds are better this time around though.
I think the biggest problem comes from discussing the taboo that is eventual human fatalities. When talking about these environmental changes and means of potentially altering their course, they try so very hard to avoid discussing the true impact of almost any option on human life.
A bit of a tangent... All this talk is substantially over-complicating things. We're sentient bags of meat who are fighting over territory with other bags of meat and their green brethren. What it comes down to is, once again, survival of that best adapted to continue living. Shit happens, people die. The entire human race could actually die off and the irony is that nobody would care (given how very un-alive they would be). Except for those other bags of meat which see us as a potential meal. They would probably ponder the revision to their meal schedule while eating something else.
The vast majority of people ascribe an irrationally high value to human life for no reason other than "they are human, too!" Faulty logic, I say. I would much prefer not to suddenly turn up dead tomorrow, but there's not much I can do to stop it from happening and wouldn't likely care much after. :p
Again, the issue isn't climate change, but the rate of change. Systems can only adapt up to a given rate of change. Rapid changes is what causes massive problems.
Comments
Yes, but only by simplifying said system and thus rendering it much less accurate to the point of being just good enough to indicate a trend that can be used or misused to support anyone's point of view. It is also true that it's a huge undertaking to keep track of that vast amount of data and to make sense of it all.
There are several super-computer projects around the world that work on the problem of global climate and weather forecast, and the resolution of those systems has been increased with the added computational power over time. It is my impression that it has become very quiet around those projects lately, I wonder why, because they may be critical in making future decisions regarding climate change.
I'm not a believer of [B]only[/B] applying hard science to this global problem, it's also a socio-economic problem. If you don't get the support of the people, you won't get far with science alone. Even if we, who can afford to become environmentally friendly and if we would do so tomorrow, we would not be enough to reverse the damage done. There is some urgent re-thinking of our globalization strategy that needs to be done.
Probably because those simulations take months to years to run. Science goes in fits and bursts, unfortunately.
[quote]I'm not a believer of [B]only[/B] applying hard science to this global problem, it's also a socio-economic problem. If you don't get the support of the people, you won't get far with science alone. Even if we, who can afford to become environmentally friendly and if we would do so tomorrow, we would not be enough to reverse the damage done. There is some urgent re-thinking of our globalization strategy that needs to be done.[/QUOTE]
This is (partly) why I advocate applying the precautionary principle. There's little point in reducing our society/life styles back to the "good old days" when everyone lived in huts and was a subsistence farmer, like some of the more extreme environmentalists wish (that would require killing off about 95% of the population), nor should we expect those in less fortunate countries to do remain in that state. But at the same time, we can neither expect the entire population of the planet to be like we currently are, and nor should we allow people to cheerfully do as they wish without regard for the environment, since that effects the wider society.
... Iraq war, UN right America wrong.
Just because America ignored the UN doesn't make the UN wrong.
Your opinion is based on what you want the truth to be. Looks like something presented by Faux. Theres a guy who thinks the pyramids were made by poring dirt to make stone too.
You can think there wrong but you don't have the knowledge to do anything but parrot what a very few real scientist think. Anything more then that is just making things up.
The side I parrot has worked there way up from a few to a vast majority.
Sense when is science a popularity contest? That statement means you don't know how science works.
My friends don't like B5 It's because there lesser people.
I'm assuming you haven't followed the science on man made global warming from a few people to a vast majority.
What scientist do we chose to believe? It doesn't work like that.
For a board that follows a Science Fiction show I'm surprised at the level of knowledge of how science works.
... Iraq war, UN right America wrong.
Just because America ignored the UN doesn't make the UN wrong.[/quote]Your point? They're still irrelevant, and they're still wrong.
Take it from this angle: if the scientists the UN hire release one finding, nothing changes, and everyone goes home. If they release another, all the little countries have yet another reason to pile onto the US and demand reparations for it causing all of their problems. Which finding do you think they're more likely to encourage?
This is especially ironic when you consider the fact recent studies indicate that these developing nations produce much higher concentrations of pollution than the US does. After all, they don't have the money to set up "clean" factories and power plants, and they don't have governments forcing such things onto them like the US does. It's just more fun to pile on the country with a higher standard of living and demand your share.[QUOTE=Chaosed;171162]Your opinion is based on what you want the truth to be. Looks like something presented by Faux. Theres a guy who thinks the pyramids were made by poring dirt to make stone too.[/quote]And your opinion is based on what you want the truth to be. You formed an opinion long ago, and now you listen to sources that agree with you and tune out or belittle those that don't.
Have we made any progress by saying that to each other?
In this discussion, I'm not going to cite a source that says man is causing irreperable harm to the biosphere, and you're not going to cite a source saying that all is well with the climate.
What's your point?[QUOTE=Chaosed;171162] You can think there wrong but you don't have the knowledge to do anything but parrot what a very few real scientist think. Anything more then that is just making things up. The side I parrot has worked there way up from a few to a vast majority.
Sense when is science a popularity contest? That statement means you don't know how science works.[/quote]Perhaps it is you who does not know how science works? Science can only [b]disprove[/b] things. What you get from scientific experiment is not proof that your hypothesis, or guess, is accurate, but merely the consolation that your guess has not been disproven. If it has, then you make a better guess, and try to test that.
Many of the [b]scientific laws[/b], or guesses that have stood the test of time and all those who sought to disprove them, we hold dear today actually started with a lone voice speaking against a long-held majority opinion. Who knew that alpha particles would penetrate gold foil? There were even scientific writings including caloric, the inivisible liquid that is the cause of heat, up until the 20th century. That theory lasted a hundred years. If, back in the 19th century, someone were to bring up the theory of heat and its merits, and you shot them down merely because the theory of caloric was the most popular belief at the time, you'd look like a moron now.
Hence, my comment about science being a popularity contest. Your main argument so far as to why my opinion is invalid is that you perceive your beliefs to be supported by the majority opinion of scientists. Is that true, or is it merely supported by the loudest or most well funded?
Not too long ago the University of Rochester released findings indicating that the Earth is not heating up, but is in fact cooling down. That's just what I can remember off the top of my head at 1 AM. I'm sure there are more I haven't heard about. Doom and gloom just sells too well, increasing the signal to noise ratio. Besides, according to you I'm not allowed to listen to this source because it doesn't agree with the majority opinion of the scientific community. Or rather, what you perceive this majority to believe. [url=http://forums.firstones.com/showpost.php?p=170989&postcount=44]Those guys at U of R are just scientists. What do they know?[/url][QUOTE=Chaosed;171162]My friends don't like B5 It's because there lesser people.[/quote]Please tell me that's just your attempt at quoting me without using the quote button. Or extreme sarcasm. That works too.[QUOTE=Chaosed;171162]I'm assuming you haven't followed the science on man made global warming from a few people to a vast majority. What scientist do we chose to believe? It doesn't work like that. For a board that follows a Science Fiction show I'm surprised at the level of knowledge of how science works.[/QUOTE]Again, I'm much more convinced that you don't know how science works, especially when politics becomes involved.
I've given you some reasons why I believe what I believe. You can accept that I have valid reasons for believing what I believe, just as I accept that you have valid reasons for believing what you believe (even if I disagree with it!). Or you can continue to paint me as ignorant and misguided under the guise of making a scientific argument. It's your choice.
I don't think you've stated [i]why[/i] the report is wrong yet.
[quote]Take it from this angle: if the scientists the UN hire release one finding, nothing changes, and everyone goes home. If they release another, all the little countries have yet another reason to pile onto the US and demand reparations for it causing all of their problems. Which finding do you think they're more likely to encourage? [/quote]
I think you're attributing the UN with a little too much consistency, single-mindedness and competence. :p The reports are also not created by the UN; the IPCC was created by the UN Environment Programme and the World Metoroligical Organisation but isn't a UN department that follows security council policy or anything like that.
There [i]are[/i] issues with politicisation of the IPCC. The summary reports (which are all anyone who isn't a climatologist ever bothers to read) are reviewed by governments (outside of UN processes), not just scientists, for some bizarre reason that I don't understand. However, this doesn't make their findings totally guided by governments aiming for a report that says "what they want us to think," particularly as governments are not involved in the first 3 reports that are used to make the summary.
The IPCC also doesn't do any actual research. They make literature reviews. All they do is summarise existing peer-reviewed research. If they tried to leave anything significant out or unfairly bias an incorrect paper (so as to, say, skew the result) they'd get hammered. Their 3rd report, for example, relied heavily on data that was later shown to be incorrectly interpreted. Their results are also generally pretty conservative (probably due to the influence of governments during report drafting).
[quote]This is especially ironic when you consider the fact recent studies indicate that these developing nations produce much higher concentrations of pollution than the US does. After all, they don't have the money to set up "clean" factories and power plants, and they don't have governments forcing such things onto them like the US does.[/quote]
This part is, unfortunately, true, and is the major problem with the Kyoto Protocol: countries like China and India are excluded, despite China being right behind the US in CO2 output, and likely to overtake soon if they haven't already. What little the 1st world nations can achieve is likely to be irrelevant if 1/3 of the world's population is pouring pollution into the atmosphere at the worst levels of the 20th century.
[quote]In this discussion, I'm not going to cite a source that says man is causing irreperable harm to the biosphere, and you're not going to cite a source saying that all is well with the climate.[/quote]
Neither of you have cited much at all yet, just stated lots of opinions. One source each, by my quick skim of the thread. ;)
[quote]Not too long ago the University of Rochester released findings indicating that the Earth is not heating up, but is in fact cooling down.[/QUOTE]
Climate change can include cooling down, too, and that would be just as bad for us as heating up. The crops and animals we rely on like a very narrow range of temperature, which we've been within for the very brief time during which our civilisation has grown beyond a few small tribes in Africa. The media likes their "Global Warming!" catchphrase, though.
Um, they didn't go extinct. They just left when they ran out of resources.
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapanui"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapanui[/URL]
They are back and don't live in huts anymore. :D
[URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/vtveen/369742373/"]Chile - Easter Island, Hanga Roa[/URL] (which is located on the westernmost tip of the island: [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Easter_Island_map-en.svg"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Easter_Island_map-en.svg[/URL])
BTW, Happy Easter everyone!
Very civil and well-thought-out post, Biggles.
Also, just as much as you have a right to hold an opinion another has just enough right to write you off for having it.
An opinion is based on being informed. JMS.
I know about global cooling. It was something to be concerned about. I understand how it worked I understand why it is not a concern for now but may be in the future.
I know the Earth has evidence of being covered by ice, in total, twice. I understand why it isn't currently covered in ice.
Linkey time.
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm[/url]
Now, the panel concluded that it was at least 90% certain that human emissions of greenhouse gases rather than natural variations are warming the planet's surface.
[/QUOTE]
I must respectfully disagree. Why I do so has already been covered better by others. I've stayed out of this debate because I'm not all that great at refining my thoughts into arguments, but I feel I must jump in and state that just because your opinions do not match up, your personal stance holds greater legitimacy. We're talking about a subject in which we as a species have a very limited understanding of, making a great deal of leaps and assumptions (guided by our personal or public bias) in attempting to fill the gaps. Going back to my original point, I see nothing that indicates Vertigo 1 possessing a poor understanding of science (or the system in which it operates).
And while your link provides one perspective on matters, there are countless other research groups that provide their own differing interpretations, many of which carry some large measure of credibility. The link you provided manages to present a story ranging from a trivial increase in temperatures to what almost seems like an end of the world story. While it may be accurate given what information it was based on, I don't have the study in front of me and cannot make any educated statements until I do.
I feel everything goes back to what croxis said some time earlier: Global warming is not a matter of "Is it happening," but rather [B]to what degree[/B] and whether or not this delta is influenced (and if so, to what extent) by humans. I simply do not believe we have enough information to properly understand that particular aspect yet.
At the same time, I believe in the precautionary principle with logic liberally applied and with convenience in mind. Is my doing x going to be better for the environment than y, and how is it going to affect my life? Will I have to spend three times as long cooking dinner? each night? Will my cost of living rise or drop if I open the windows and harness the sunlight? Trivial examples, I'm sure, but they are perfect examples of everyday activities that could impact the environment in some small way.
Rate now the oldest law of science, more then thousand years older then science may be proven wrong.
When enough scientist conclude it to be wrong, a majority (I don't know the % needed) that law will be dropped.
Biggles said it best with the pear review.
Too many people treat science like religion. That could get us all killed.
The people, scientist, who investigated the phenomenon think there is enough evidence to say Humans make it worse. The work is done the report is in.
This is the same as the corporations that kept studying cigarette smoking and the people who said it wasn't bad for there health. The are still millions who think smoking is good for them.
This isn't something people get to believe what ever they want to.
Statistics is the science I have problems with.
I know that it's not as popular in classrooms as it used to be. :D
[QUOTE]Too many people treat science like religion. That could get us all killed.[/QUOTE]
That would be the so-called uneducated people. Science is not about what you believe, it's about what can be experimentally proven. There is method to the madness. I always crack up when I hear the expression of someone not "believing in evolution." There is nothing to believe, evolution is not a religion or a flavor of the month. Granted, evolution can only be proven to the point where the dots of the historical record get connected, since there is no way to experimentally reproduce it, at least not that I know of. :D
Death is overrated. Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out of it alive.
[QUOTE]Statistics is the science I have problems with.[/QUOTE]
I'd say the problem lies with the samples they choose to use, not the maths involved. :D
No, it's not. It may turn into that sometimes when experimental results are lacking, but it's not meant to be a popularity contest. Science is about what theory best fits the facts we have and the experimentally-derived results. When experimentally-derived results are lacking, there are no scientific laws, only one or more (usually conflicting) theories.
Climate change fits into the area of lacking experimentally-derived results, and so individual scientists' interpretations tend to lead to them having conflicting conclusions about what data we do have.
Yes quantum physics is much more easy to experiment with than planetary climate systems, but the very people who love and trust their gizmoes for entertainment or to save their lives do not trust the process which came to the conclusion about evolution or global warming is a level of irony which drives me to tears.
However, I feel that expressing this here goes agains the spirit of the community the moderators have attempted to create here. Saying, for example, "People who believe X are ignorant!" does nothing to foster productive discussion. Instead of arguing the merits of their viewpoint, we've devolved into generalizations and personal attacks. It adds nothing to the discussion, and only adds the potential to derail it further.[QUOTE=Sanfam;171237]Going back to my original point, I see nothing that indicates Vertigo 1 possessing a poor understanding of science (or the system in which it operates). [/quote]Thank you!.[QUOTE=Sanfam;171237]At the same time, I believe in the precautionary principle with logic liberally applied and with convenience in mind. Is my doing x going to be better for the environment than y, and how is it going to affect my life? Will I have to spend three times as long cooking dinner? each night? Will my cost of living rise or drop if I open the windows and harness the sunlight? Trivial examples, I'm sure, but they are perfect examples of everyday activities that could impact the environment in some small way.[/QUOTE]I wholeheartedly agree. However, at what point do we ask the government to step in and force greener practices on our neighbor? Do we regulate what kinds of vehicles people can own and drive? Do we regulate how often they use them, and how far they go with them? Or is this whole environmental issue another reason for the government to attack "big business"? This is especially bothersome if it becomes more financially feasible for a business to outsource its manufacturing to a country without such restrictions, costing domestic jobs and foreign pollution.
Very well thought out post, in general.[QUOTE=croxis;171261]Science is a way of knowing, a way of evaluating knowledge claims using very specific parameters. The "stuff" of science comes about through this method. I often remind people that the very process used to model and discover and predict the theories and properties which are used to create and build the very computer you are using is the same process on evolution and climate change.
Yes quantum physics is much more easy to experiment with than planetary climate systems, but the very people who love and trust their gizmoes for entertainment or to save their lives do not trust the process which came to the conclusion about evolution or global warming is a level of irony which drives me to tears.[/QUOTE]The difference here is that you can run an experiment, complete with a control group, to determine the effects of, say, electricity on semiconductors. The means to reproduce these experiments is within the means of most interested parties.
Even if we could predict what the climate will be like in fifty years with complete certainty, we still wouldn't have a control group to compare it to. We can't rewind the planet four hundred years, prevent the industrial revolution from happening, and then go four-hundred fifty years into the future to compare the results. There's no opportunity to take man out of the system and observe it as a control.
We can start shaking our heads at people for not holding your view on climate change when this view is as universally accepted in the scientific community as, for example, general relativity. It stands up under scrutiny from scientists with experimentally-derived results. There are no such results for this issue and there is no generally uniform consensus be ignorant of.
Attacking something with the scientifc method does not guarantee results. See string theory if you don't believe me.
[QUOTE=Biggles;171253]No, it's not. It may turn into that sometimes when experimental results are lacking, but it's not meant to be a popularity contest. Science is about what theory best fits the facts we have and the experimentally-derived results. When experimentally-derived results are lacking, there are no scientific laws, only one or more (usually conflicting) theories.
Climate change fits into the area of lacking experimentally-derived results, and so individual scientists' interpretations tend to lead to them having conflicting conclusions about what data we do have.[/QUOTE]I wholeheartedly agree.
Evaluating knowledge claims using science is a bit more boroad than that. The first step is asking if the model is natural. Then is asking if the model is testable. This includes observational testability as well. Those two tiers alone separate science from other ways of evaluation such as by authority or tradition. The third level has several questions of relativly equal importance: Parsimony; the most economical explenation is perfered, Scope; The more phenomenon the model can explain the better. Fruitfulness; The model which builds on previous knowledge the best is also prefered.
90 of them say it is real.
10 of them say it isn't.
I'll stick with the popular group.
In the beginning it was only a few people. It was hard fought with science to convince people to be worried.
But the 10 have lost. It is time for action.
California mandates florescent bulbs. Second hand smoke kills. And everything else were there is a consensus but some still say no.
It's up to the side that lost to prove there point. The winners have, well, won.
Two colleges combine to make one. Both are good on a number for a minority. Once combined there no longer good on that number.
Statistics. EEEEK!
Can you believe that a majority of people used to believe that the Sun and the stars all revolved around the Earth? Seems silly in this context, but I feel the meaning is better emphasized through an absurd example.
I also feel that the craze for fluorescent lights is simply trading one short-term problem for another longer-term one in an effort to [I]look[/I] green now, but that's a subject for another thread. And while I abhor smoking and can't begin to tolerate the vapors, I believe it has not been demonstrated or even proven in theory that second-hand smoke actually kills. But again, another thread.
Can you believe that a majority of people used to believe that the Sun and the stars all revolved around the Earth? Seems silly in this context, but I feel the meaning is better emphasized through an absurd example.
[/QUOTE]
While I see your point, I disagree with your analogy. We don't live in those medieval times anymore (some might disagree with that, but that's for another thread), where those 90% were made of clerics who didn't really want to let anybody mess around with the establishment and didn't know that much about the science involved. I do agree that there are agendas behind certain points of view and they can and often do conflict with science when financial considerations are involved.
Some say that even though the ice is melting now, it will refreeze later on as the Earth climate has a tendency of trying to find some kind of equilibrium, so the current situation may not necessarily be such a big deal as some fearmongers are making it to be. Again, I'm all for being reasonable and considerate of the environmental consequences of us being on this planet but I don't want to turn back the clock and renounce on all the modern amenities just because the ice is melting.
1) The frozen methane on the ocean floor melts causing a runaway greenhouse effect.
2) West or East Antarctic ice sheets collapse causing massive ocean rise.
He said at this point the data indicates these two probably wont happen.
3) The currents which keep the Pacific Northwest and much of Europe warm will stop from the increasing cold freshwater from the melted ice.
He said we do not know when this one will happen yet. You may not want to give up an amenity here or there just because some ice melts, but I don't want my area to be covered in a mini ice age just because one ice shelf collapses.
The whole point of the Kyoto protocol was not to solve global warming, but to delay the events caused by it for 10 years. Our understanding of Earth's systems have improved greatly over the past 20 years and another 10 would give us even greater understanding and time to learn things -- such as seeding the seas with iron is actually a bad idea.
Sure, nature is self-healing. But how do we know that nature is going to heal into the way [B]we[/B] want it to be? The environment has never been "static" for long periods of time and change is the only true constant. While I'd much rather the human race be something significant, it really isn't. We've only been something worth noting for just about three thousand years (perhaps only two?). That's barely We have technology, but that means nothing in the grand scheme if we only end up dying off due to changes in our habitat and making way for the next dominant form.
The planet, and life on it, has survived far worse in the past and will survive far worse in the future than what we *may* be doing to them today. Our civilization, should it wish to survive (and I believe it will), is going to have to get used to the fact that the climate changes. Sometimes it might change because of our activities, and sometimes it will change due to forces beyond our control. Sooner or later, as long as we are on this planet, the Human race will have to survive an ice age, will have to survive a severe warm period, and will have to survive in the relatively comfortable climate we currently enjoy, and it will have to get used to it.
"Sustainability" is a myth which we will never achieve. Throughout our history we have moved from one unsustainable power source to another, and we will continue to do so. Oil will become more expensive and it will continue to be used for another century, as new supplies in the North or South or any other damn place are exposed by possible changes in climate. It does not matter what Europe or North America do. It does not matter if those two continents cut their emissions to zero right now. Emissions from countries like China and India will continue to grow with each new automobile and each new coal fired power plant they build, and the situation will continue to get "worse" regardless. This is what WILL happen, and no piece of paper or South Pacific conference is going to change it. The environment will change sooner or later and people will adapt. Cities may have to be moved, as they have been moved due to changes in sea level throughout history. Alternatively, new resource possibilities may be opened up in Northern and Southern regions.
This will all be expensive. People will die. It is, however, what is going to happen. People want cars, and homes, and ovens, and electric lights. People everywhere want these things, and they will have them, and the massive surge of that want will not be abated by Al Gore or David Suzuki or any other person. The rhetoric of these people will sway some, but not most. It will not sway China, who builds a new coal fired plant every week and who's cities are smothered in suffocating air pollution that would be beyond tolerance in the West. It will not sway India, who's still rising population begins to flex its economic muscle and industry with modern amenities. It will not sway Mexico or South America, who's populations don't even think about energy consumption and who currently don't recycle a shred of trash. Don't even get started on the Middle East, who's Saudi Princes drive sports cars into the desert, to be picked up by helicopter when they run out of gas. The speeches and warnings barely register with rich nations, most of whom signed onto the pointless Kyoto treaty but have paid mere lip service to its enforcement.
I'm not saying I want all of this to happen or even that I believe for sure that the climate will continue to suffer, but either way very little is going to change in the next century. We can't remove the carbon from the atmosphere if we wanted to, and we are not going to stop emitting it. People are going to drive, and planes are going to fly, and million-gallon burning boats are going to sail, and nothing anyone says is going to stop that. The Human race will push forward as it's doing now, and it will continue to push forward until the next ice age, and then we'll have to figure out how to survive it. Maybe we'll start pumping CO2 into the atmosphere on purpose to warm the planet, as the environmentalists scream at us for letting the frogs and caribou die, and demand that something be done!
As oil prices rise rich nations will move to greener, eventually cheaper power sources. It will take decades and decades. Regardless of what some people would *like* to happen, this is what's *going* to happen. My hope is that 5 years from now the global temperature will have dropped another degree or a half and we'll all be laughing at Al Gore and the rest. Unlike some people, I'm not convinced we're even capable of "killing" the planet if we deliberately tried. Nothing's ever succeeded before, and as Sanfam said, we're just not that damn important.
[QUOTE]Stingray, perhaps a better analogy would be one involving the many "modern" medical practices to come up in the past hundred-plus years that turned out being significantly more harmful in the long run than the symptoms they attempted to treat.[/QUOTE]
That's more like it, Sanfam. If there's one field of study that sucks more than global climatology, it's medicine (anything related to computers comes in third). :D
Anyway, there's currently a huge sized bloc of ice breaking off the IIRC western coast of Antarctica and you know what, it doesn't bother me as much as would the news that the arctic circles are moving towards the equator.
The universe is a rather cold place and we are living on a rock with liquid water and a thin layer of air which just happens to be at the right temperature to allow life to flourish. We may not be able to afford to get much warmer, but we certainly wouldn't survive another ice age. Where would we get the food from? How would we be able to keep warm? How many would die in the process?
The other thing that everyone seems to keep out of the equation is the continuing growth of the human population and the consequences thereof. What good is it going to do us to use energy-saving appliances if the Chinese and Indians keep reproducing like rabbits? We may be heading into a situation more pressing than CO2 emissions. (And I don't mean smelly diapers...) As we saw in Tibet, the Chinese aren't afraid to act either.
Don't you mean "as we didn't see"?
We'd survive an ice age, no problem. Not everyone would, of course. Huge numbers of people would die, but we would survive. Humans survived the last one, barely, and I'd like to think we're moderately better equipped this time.
Yeah, well, you know what I mean. :D
[QUOTE]We'd survive an ice age, no problem. Not everyone would, of course. Huge numbers of people would die, but we would survive. Humans survived the last one, barely, and I'd like to think we're moderately better equipped this time.[/QUOTE]
Oh, yeah, with nukes and toys just like that. I'm not so sure our odds are better this time around though.
Also, excellent post, Alec.
I think the biggest problem comes from discussing the taboo that is eventual human fatalities. When talking about these environmental changes and means of potentially altering their course, they try so very hard to avoid discussing the true impact of almost any option on human life.
A bit of a tangent... All this talk is substantially over-complicating things. We're sentient bags of meat who are fighting over territory with other bags of meat and their green brethren. What it comes down to is, once again, survival of that best adapted to continue living. Shit happens, people die. The entire human race could actually die off and the irony is that nobody would care (given how very un-alive they would be). Except for those other bags of meat which see us as a potential meal. They would probably ponder the revision to their meal schedule while eating something else.
The vast majority of people ascribe an irrationally high value to human life for no reason other than "they are human, too!" Faulty logic, I say. I would much prefer not to suddenly turn up dead tomorrow, but there's not much I can do to stop it from happening and wouldn't likely care much after. :p