Losing the Public Debate On Global Warming 1181
Hugh Pickens writes "Dr. James Hansen, director of the NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who first made warnings about climate change in the 1980s, says that public skepticism about the threat of man-made climate change has increased despite the growing scientific consensus. He says that without public support, it will be impossible to make the changes he and his colleagues believe need to occur to protect future generations from the effects of climate change. 'The science has become stronger and stronger over the past five years while the public perception is has gone in completely the other direction. That is not an accident,' says Hansen. 'There is a very concerted effort by people who would prefer to see business to continue as usual. They have been winning the public debate with the help of tremendous resources.' Hansen's comments come as recent surveys have revealed that public support for tackling climate change has declined dramatically in recent years. A recent BBC poll found that 25% of British adults did not think global warming is happening and over a third said many claims about environmental threats are 'exaggerated,' compared to 24 per cent in 2000. Dr. Benny Peiser, director of skeptical think tank The Global Warming Policy Foundation, says it's time to stop exaggerating the impact of global warming and accept the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change. 'James Hensen has been making predictions about climate change since the 1980s. When people are comparing what is happening now to those predictions, they can see they fail to match up.'"
What did we expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
When we have a nontrivial portion of the population who does not believe that humanity resulted from evolution by natural selection, and that the universe is less than ten thousand years old, did we really expect people to accept science that something bad is going to happen if they do not change their behavior?
Our failure to insist on scientific literacy rates as high as written-word literacy rates is going to be something that comes back to bite us, I'm afraid. I'm not sure there is anything to be done for the problem now, except educate as well as we can.
Maybe we can have some scientists say that a god revealed to them that it dislikes the smell of vehicle exhaust and is angrily heating up the planet as a result. Unfortunately, I'm only half-kidding.
Re:The problem is chicken little (Score:5, Insightful)
Once the sky falls enough for a piece to hit you in the head, then it's too late to prevent its complete collapse. So do we want to prevent it from falling, or not?
Multi-trillion dollar oil industry vs... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're going to take on an issue that strikes fear in the blood-pumps (not hearts) of multi-trillion dollar industries, they are going to spend some of those trillions trying to paint you a fool in the eyes of the public.
Anyone who thought it would be easy wasn't getting into the fight with their eyes open. All you have to do is look at the way medical cannabis is legal in many states, while the DEA continues to claim there is no medical use for cannabis to realize that going up against the status quo is, at best, "frustrating."
GW (Score:4, Insightful)
- There is a complete industry now that exists by the grace of the belief that GW is man-made and we can do something about it. This is business having an interest in governments and public believing we should reduce CO2 emissions.
- Being a GW denier is silly. However try taking the position that GW is not entirely man-made, or that GW will not be as damaging as to justify billions of investments. You will get attacked almost in the way blasphemists were attacked in the middle ages. You are a non-believer, and you should go along with the "common believe" and "consensus", what we all think. How dare you disagree? But science is not consensus based. One experiment is all it takes to create new insights, models, theories.
I feel frustrated by governments taking GW as an excuse to raise taxes and increase influence on everyones personal life whenever they can. For instance, banning the light bulb - just how stupid is that?
Re:How does this make a difference? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How does this make a difference? (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh...I know a lot of people who have made shifts like that. And incidentally, it makes for a more pleasant life.
The only piece I really haven't done is "stop eating meat," I've tried vegetarianism, and even the suggested diet leaves me tired and hungry. As to the rest? I bike or take public transit almost everywhere-I still have a car, I think I put maybe 1500 miles on it last year. This year will probably be even less. I very rarely fly. If I need to log into a client's system to troubleshoot it, that's what remoting in is for. I don't need to personally be there.
As an added bonus, it's better! Biking is much more pleasant than sitting stuck in traffic, as is reading a book on the train, and the cycling part of it is good for your health to boot. Remoting in to a client's system rather than physically going out there saves the client paying for travel costs, and saves me having to deal with the hassle of it. Win-win.
Totally agreed on hybrid cars. If people want to make a difference, they don't need a different car, they need to drive the car less. Someone with the worst gas-guzzler SUV in the world that they rarely ever start is doing much more good than a Prius owner commuting in it daily. There is one thing, though, that encourages people (including the most ardent climate-change denialists) to leave that car in the garage more often-higher gas prices. I'm not sorry at all to see them rising.
Re:How does this make a difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
We need a strong fundamental shift in our lifestyles - stop eating meat - stop driving everywhere - stop flying in planes, stop consuming useless shit. No one - even global warming believers - seems to be willing to do this.
I know a few people who do that.
Personally I don't. I don't believe the answer is for a few people with the highest integrity to take action, whilst the majority don't do anything.
There has to be systematic solutions, such that everyone changes. The market always wants to go in the direction of more consumption, so those solutions have to come from governments' mandates.
It's either that or wait till the environment does turn to shit and non-sustainable resources are exhausted. And let nature put an and to it.
It isn't global warming science that many object t (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The problem is chicken little (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem really is chicken little.
I've tried to explain this to people "in the movement" and they just get livid. Because the environmentalists have spent so much time focusing on AGW/carbon, other issues which are much more obvious and easy to rally people on have been ignored.
The problem with the apocalyptic arguments are that people tune them out the same way they tune out fundamentalists Christian apocalypses. The AGW fundamentalists come off the same way.
The real shame is that while they've been preaching, real issues are being ignored. Mountain top mining goes on. Coal ash fallout continues. The irony is that if they addressed these real and obvious concerns about which few disagree, then carbon emissions would be reduced as a side effect.
Another thing is that the AGW apocalypse isn't as bad as the Christian one unless we go Venus. I don't think any scientists are suggesting that. I always imagine a couple guys in the Bay Area 20,000 years ago. One turns to another and says, "hey, put out that fire. If you don't the world will heat up and the whole valley will flood". Well, Hello... 20,000 years later we have "save the bay". Save the Bay??? That's the paleo-native American apocalypse. We should be filling it back in.
I always remember this one argument I got into with a guy at a coffee shop. I never got to explain why I thought it was wrong for the movement to focus on AGW. He just flew into a rage. That's not science. That's religion.
Re:The problem is chicken little (Score:2, Insightful)
The economy is hardly working as is. Add regulation to reach a 20% reduction in CO2 and we break its back.
And that 20% reduction would only be symbolic anyway.
It's not the science (Score:4, Insightful)
IMHO the science is a minor part of it with regards to the public. It's the fact that there is a perception that certain ideologies have seized upon GW as a free ticket to further their agendas of limiting economic and public activity and increasing the interference and power of government within our lives. The natural reaction of the competing ideology is to discredit the basis of this power grab.
Economically, with the general decline the G20 is experiencing, as the most advanced nations they would bear the brunt of this new philosophy of "sustainability", which would be suicide for them.
Politically, specifically in America, there's a reason progressives embrace GW and conservatives do not. It provides a cover for some of their longest desired goals. Further centralization of government, extreme enviromentalism, and anti-capitalism.
Science is just a patsy for both sides in this argument.
Re:How does this make a difference? (Score:1, Insightful)
Solar, Wind, Geothermal are all preferable. NOT NUCLEAR. Freaking morons who like nuclear don't take into account the amount of radioactive waste, decomissioning of the reactor, and the amount of uranium mining tailings that contaminate construction materials. Did you know that the only place in north america not contaminated with radioactive material is British Columbia? That's because there are no Uranium Mines and no Nuclear reactors.
Geothermal arguably can remove global warming and CO2 emissions by capping off existing emissions from economically nonviable hotspring sources. The other quick way to bring CO2 down is by getting people to stop eating meat, by growing it like a vegetable... eventually. Meat farming is so wasteful.
Likewise with cars and transportation, We can't really go back to 1920's because the population density doesn't allow it. But we can control populations by disincentivizing having unwanted and unaffordable children. Educate early enough (like age 10, and then promise children every year how much their lives will be ruined by having children before they can afford them.) No social safety net for babymaking. If you have a kid, you don't get to suck the teat of the government. They go into foster care if you can't afford them, and you don't get them back till you can afford to care for them by yourself. No more god damned octomoms.
Re:GW (Score:5, Insightful)
But science is not consensus based. One experiment is all it takes to create new insights, models, theories.
Consensus means that most of them believe there is enough support. And no one in the community has come up with anything credible that refutes the basic premise of climate change. Sure there is disagreement about how severe it will become, how much time before severe changes will need to happen, and what can be done to mitigate the problem, but there is little disagreement that is man-made. I don't know if you know the scientific community but it is populated by opinionated, arrogant bastards just like any other competitive field. And there are sometimes lengthy, nasty fights about the smallest of details. To get a consensus in this group pretty much says the science is well-supported and sound.
Re:The problem is chicken little (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What did we expect? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you'd like to have the abortion debate, I'm game, but it'd be inflammatory and offtopic here. If you do want to, respond and I'll start a journal entry for the purpose.
A similar discussion ... (Score:1, Insightful)
Bob: How long will it take us to hit the groud if we don't open our chutes?
George: 2 minutes.
Bob: Your math is off. 3 minutes.
John: Since you two can't agree, gravity must not exist.
Re:What did we expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Taliban feel the same way about women covering their faces in public, or insulting their prophet, as you do about a woman and a doctor choosing wether carrying her child to term is best for her and or the child. You should really think about how you feel about their moral belief on those issues, and would you like to be subject to their laws, before you condemn others for not agreeing with yours on another.
Just because you believe something is a mortal sin, does not make it right for you to enforce your beliefs on others. Don't you believe they will be judged anyway by your diety? Why do you believe that it is your duty to impose the will of your diety, do you not believe him capable of it without your might, let alone your two cents?
Religious freedom is also not just about your ability to practice your religion in peace, but for everyone else to practice theirs as well.
Re:science and political activism don't mix. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hansen Must Go (Score:4, Insightful)
Back in the Kyoto talks, we were TOLD that if no action was taken, then the point of no return was something like 2007. Well? Based on that "science", nothing we do can help anyway.
We [npr.org] get [ummah.com] predictions [commondreams.org] like [newsbank.com] that [examiner.com] all [independent.co.uk] the [slashdot.org] time [smh.com.au]. If there's anything we learned from the climategate emails, it's that a lot of the scientists working on this problem are not working in good faith.
The solution, I think, is to work on things that will help us anyway, even if AGW turns out to not be a problem. For example, improving electric car technology will be good for America, whether AGW is a big ball of hype, or whether it's real. Same with fusion electricity. We can work on those things.
Re:How does this make a difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's $4 billion available without raising taxes: the oil and natural gas subsidies.
The reason is simple. (Score:3, Insightful)
We hear all this stuff about not flying and they have these huge parties/conventions all over the world in really nice fancy places, alot of the people coming via private planes.
You can see all the huge houses owned by the people pushing it.
Heck even countries are not acting like it is true, look at all the countries dropping low emission power generation in place of coal based plants.
What is needed... (Score:3, Insightful)
Is unpopular decisions that are going to be very expensive. We can't just sit back can cry over the expenses and hope the problem goes away, we can no afford to NOT fix the problems.
Instead we see NIMBY's stopping just about every technology that can help us out, coming up with stupid excuses as to why they are not the ones being idiotic. Sure, some of the tested technologies are not paying themselves back as much as we could have hoped, but they are still better than no action, as even a failed experiment yields useful information.
Instead of building sustainable energy, the ones wanting to build have to waste their time in courts fighting ignorants over conjecture and details such as "will it spoil my view from my bedroom window in the morning".
Instead of building CO2 neutral power, we are decommissioning existing power plants, with the only alternative being coal or gas, which is NOT CO2 neutral. True, some of the decommissioned plants were unsafe, but not all are. But the easily scared population want them gone, just because one have a mishap in Japan after being exposed to forces in excess of five times the expected worst case scenario. People forget the fact that most nuclear power plants are NOT in the risk zones of quakes that bad.
Instead of looking into alternatives. people flatly say no when they hear some buzzwords. That is the damage the "green" movements have done to the efforts to get GREEN energy.
Re:How does this make a difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
Humans eat meat. Our teeth and intenstines are the evidence.
Naturalistic fallacy [wikipedia.org]. Just because we evolved to eat meat doesn't mean we have to eat meat, or even that we should.
(not that I don't - I'm just pointing out the reasoning flaw)
Re:The problem is chicken little (Score:1, Insightful)
I agree, failing to protect our future from death is far less important than profits now.
No, you got it wrong.
What he's saying is that with the US economy in the state it's in now, it's a choice of certain economic collapse and widespread death, starvation, & suffering for a near-certainty now in order to *maybe* prevent/delay something that may well be a totally natural phenomenon and may or may not be catastrophic decades down the line, or surviving now, and maybe having a problem later...a problem that depends on IF all the politically-motivated AGW furor and all the flawed climate models and debunked "hockey sticks" actually turn out NOT to be a political ploy to cover a move for global wealth-redistribution and a scam to skim wealth off of carbon-trading, none of which actually fixes anything supposedly broken with the climate, they just move money from one set of pockets to another.
Strat
Strat
Stop exaggerating (Score:5, Insightful)
For years, the environmentalists have believed that it was necessary to exaggerate.
If they said "Here is a problem we should try to solve", they believed they would be ignored.
So instead they scream "THIS PROBLEM THREATENS OUR SURVIVAL!!! WE NEED TO SOLVE IT NOW!!!!".
After years of hearing this, the public recalibrates their bullshit sensors.
And yes, I consider myself an environmentalist. I just wish the rest of us were more honest.
Re:How does this make a difference? (Score:4, Insightful)
Four Billion dollars? (Evil laugh).
That's nothing! Absolutely nothing.
(Maniac Laughter).
Re:What did we expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
You are missing a larger problem. It is that The scientific method is the best we have at discovering why something is happening in the natural world. It is terrible at explaining if something is a problem and what solution should be implemented by force, ie governments. This really falls into the study of economics and human action.
So while a scientist can report their data and conclusions and even explain possible scenarios and predicted outcomes they cant say what the policy should be. Taking that last step puts them into economics and politics because it involves using force to control other people's lives. And most people have an inherent distrust of people that want to control over them.
Unintended consequences... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The problem is chicken little (Score:4, Insightful)
Hyperbole (Score:5, Insightful)
The economy is hardly working as is. Add regulation to reach a 20% reduction in CO2 and we break its back.
And that 20% reduction would only be symbolic anyway.
Speaking of chicken little and hyperbole in the debate.
Our economy and its energy usage is just like the obese person who goes into a restaurant and order 3 low calorie dinners for themselves.
We're running around trying to fix the symptoms when the airline industry, for one, has been solving the problem for decades.
To save fuel costs, they buy more efficient engines and streamline their operations - as much as they can - and as a result, they use less fuel; which has a side effect of lower pollution and other emissions AND they become a bit more profitable.
So, as we become more "green" we will use less fossil fuels - expensive fuels (and we're not even talking about the health and environmental costs) which will - get this - lessen the economic drag on the economy.
By being more fuel efficient and "green" it will actually boost the economy.
Or since folks like comparing the China; they are reaping what they sow because now, with the environmental devastation of their economic polices, they are experiencing some god awful things (obscene healthcare burdens for example) that will harm their economy.
Re:What did we expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Science versus economics versus politics (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether climate change is occurring is properly the domain of science. Here, I think Hansen is on relatively solid footing. Pretty much all the important policymakers have signed on to the fact climate change is occurring -- as David Brin pointed out a few days ago, when the US Navy is updating its warplans to account for the Northern Passage being open, it's hard to argue that climate change _isn't_ being taken seriously by the establishment.
However, what we should do about climate change is not a scientific question. How much will CO2 mitigation cost -- not just in terms of direct and indirect monetary damages, but in terms of human life lost? Economic growth (a large part of which is driven by the availability of cheap power) has historically been the most reliable tool for improving the human condition. Without power, life is nasty, brutish and short. If CO2 mitigation mechanisms like the sort Hansen advocates were to be adopted worldwide, what would the butcher's bill be? That's an economics problem, and Hansen is not an economist. If the climatology community is going to scream at people, "well, you're no climatologist, so you're only invited to this discussion if you agree with us!", then the economics community is entirely within its rights to tell climatologists to STFU about economic choices.
Then there's the geopolitical angle. Let's say Hansen gets his worldwide controls on CO2. Let's also say that China, currently the world's leading CO2 producer, says "no, our poor deserve a better life and we need economic growth in order to provide it, if we stop building power plants we'll have a civil war and millions will die, so fuck you, we're going to continue to build one new coal-fired power plant each week." What does the rest of the world do then -- invade China to shut down their power plants? The rest of the world can't do nothing: if it lets China slide, then the next thing you know India says, "yeah, we're in the same boat, screw you guys" and the entire thing falls apart. How do you build a geopolitical framework for enforcement of such a system? Hansen is a climatologist -- he's not Henry Kissinger.
Hansen has won the scientific argument. He's losing the economics argument and the geopolitical arguments -- and deservedly so. He's neither an economist nor a diplomat, after all.
Note to the climate change looneytunes who are about to leap down my throat: I'M AGREEING WITH YOU, DAMN IT. The only thing I'm saying is that this is a big stinking problem with a whole lot of dimensions, most of which the climatology community is completely unqualified to talk intelligently about; and within the realm that it _is_ qualified to talk about it, the climatology community has already substantially won that argument.
Nuclear is great. (Score:2, Insightful)
Freaking morons who like nuclear don't take into account the amount of radioactive waste, decomissioning of the reactor, and the amount of uranium mining tailings that contaminate construction materials.
The more people actually know about nuclear, the less worried they are about it. The people who know the most -- nuclear engineers -- are pretty good a math, and can do the sums you are talking about.
Can you? or did you just read about how the numbers look bad, and trusted some 3rd party source, who probably trusted some other 3rd party source, etc.
Wrong message (Score:5, Insightful)
The focus on how global warming is being caused has been detrimental. Its pretty deep stuff for a business major to know. You have to understand band gap orbitals to verify CO2 does indeed absorb various IR bands. Actually computing wavelengths from the orbitals filled is on the upper edge of what might be in highschool chemistry, I was not exposed until college chem. Then there is the statistics necessary to interpret temperature readings. Even engineering stat in college wasn't entirely sufficient, though most college statistics courses would be (engineering stat was dumbed down). There is no accepted water/cloud model yet even among the experts.
Trying to walk everyone through this so they are willing to act is hopeless. The cause is only of secondary importance in any case. If this was in fact a natural trend and it was harmful, we should still act and/or adapt in precisely the same ways for precisely the same reasons.
Presenting the consequences, good and bad, in a non-melodramatic way on a region by region basis for the entire world is the first step. It answers "Why should *I* change?" Water levels rising will harm many, but its not sufficient to convince many others. It is hard for a Welsh farmer who anticipates being able to start a vineyard, to be convinced by NYC turning into Venice. Give the farmer the whole picture for their region.
The second step is to present all the options for climate control and their relative effectiveness both alone and in concert. Reducing CO2/methane emissions is the most natural approach, but there are many others like sequestration, albedo engineering, and counter agents. One that comes up a lot is aerosolized SO2. Thus side effects of these other approaches should also be discussed.
We as a society will likely make the wrong choice, but right now many are making the choice without any knowledge of the consequences apart from climate horror movies, or any knowledge of the tools we have to counter these consequences apart from some vague idea we should drive less or use a different sort of light bulb.
Re:GW (Score:2, Insightful)
No, because 99.9% of the scientists in relevant fields say the evidence supports it.
ORLY? You couldnt even be bothered to base your very important conclusions on a real number? Carts dont lead horses, boy.
Re:The problem is chicken little (Score:5, Insightful)
So... an entire field of scientists doing their utmost to produce the most accurate models of climate change, with ever-improving accuracy and consensus on their work are being politically manipulated? They are _all_ blindly stupid or complicit? That appears to be what you're saying.
The only reason the science is being contested is the same reason evolution is: because some people have agendas that don't care about facts.
Re:The problem is chicken little (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not the scientists who have framed the debate in this way. It's the politicians. As soon as it became a political discussion, it created an "us versus them" mentality between the Democrats and the Republicans. At that point, any hope of actually improving things through sane, well-reasoned legislation went out the window because neither party is capable of even remotely sane or reasonable discussion of any issue.
Re:The problem is chicken little (Score:2, Insightful)
The data says it's a cycle. No. If the data says it's going to be a cycle, then you are using a model upon that data. Please, show me that model.
no, the parent is correct (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stop exaggerating (Score:4, Insightful)
For years, there have been scientists who only presented the data and warned of the consequences. There were also non-scientists who whined about it and tried to exploit it for political gains.
The problem is simply that you chose to listen to the latter and not the former.
Re:Hansen Must Go (Score:4, Insightful)
If scientists don't do this, they are not acting in good faith. When scientists don't act in good faith, you must look at their data, not their opinions.
Re:Well, history says ... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no way you can get the governments or the farmers in that area to cooperate with such a project, when it requires taking the land out of production for a year.
Yeah, there is. Its called private property.
Give each rancher/hearder their own plot of land*, fenced off from their neighbors and watch how they'll start to take care of it.
The current approach leads to tragedy o the commons [wikipedia.org]. Where no one is motivated to take care of the land because anyone can use it. And when it has become over exploited, just move on.
* Social and tribal customs need to be accounted for. In some cases, the ownership can be held at the tribe or village level rather than the individual. But that assumes a strong custom of governance within that unit. It will only work if everyone abides by the rules of the group and doesn't cheat.
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
First point is it mentions the british stats on denial, but the American ones are far worse at 50% denial or so.
Second point i'd like to make, the effects of global warming are especially long reaching and likely will be a gradually worsening trend, over decades. The predictions are very dire, indeed. The predictions being dire does not mean they need to happen overnight, we will likely see the catastrophy gradually set in over decades, things will just keeping getting worse and worse. People have problems seeing something really devastating when it sets in over a period of decades or centuries. That is a problem with human perception. When things dont happen overnight, its harder for people to see. its like with possible malnutrition problems, as these things get worse, having a billion people becoming malnourised becomes the "new normal" and they only see the short term 1% annual change or whatever that their short attention span allows them to see, not the longer term trend. They forget that at some point in the past the number of starving people was vastly less and fail to remember how much it has really gone up, because it happened in centuries, rather than days.
An earthquake gets a lot of attention because it lies within the short attention span, but the gradual global environmental degradation is a lot harder for people to see, even though its much worse than an earthquake, the damage does not suddenly occur.
Christians ideologies and all sorts of popular myths such as 2012 tell of the day the earth ended. Many people think that if the earth will end it will be a sudden disaster like that. the fact is if the earth deos not end in a day many people will say its just not in danger at all. But the fact is the things that could ruin this planet can take centuries to occur.
Re:The problem is chicken little (Score:2, Insightful)
You have totally mischaracterised the debate. Most scientists aren't shouting about the end of the world -- but /some/ scientists are shouting about doing /something/ to mitigate against future risk.
If we arent actually talking about the scientific version of the apocalypse, then why are we discussing such major sacrifices?
There is a long paper trail of those resources (Score:4, Insightful)
What you say is simply not true.
The fossil-fuel industry outspends greenpeace 10-1 on lobbying and advertising in the USA. That is not a level playing field.
Re:The problem is chicken little (Score:4, Insightful)
2.) should we go dicking with things we don't have complete knowledge and control over. ..)
What, so digging up billions of tons of hydrocarbons and releasing them into the atmosphere isn't dicking around with things we don't have complete knowledge and control over?
Nuclear and the problem with Wind.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The problem is chicken little (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What did we expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a group of us who do believe in God ... support of gun rights, strong military, etc)
I've never been able to understand how some people manage to reconcile belief in the Christian God with guns and military.
When they as WWJD? What Would Jesus Do? Surely they can't believe that he'd carry a firearm and cheer on a strong military. That's just not the man described in the New Testament at all.
Re:The problem is chicken little (Score:4, Insightful)
"What he's saying is that with the US economy in the state it's in now, it's a choice of certain economic collapse and widespread death, starvation, & suffering..."
Why is it that the USA can seemingly find enough money for a recent war in the Middle East, or a recent war out in Asia, or even spending billions and billions on a new security agency, but spending a similar amount of money on something different would cause "certain economic collapse and widespread death, starvation & suffering".
Not that I think a similar amount of money would or should be spent, just pointing out the ridiculousness of that claim.
Re:The problem is chicken little (Score:4, Insightful)
We aren't talking major sacrifices. Not at all. We just need to get our asses in gear and build either renewable or nuclear power stations to replace the existing power plants, which in most of the world are up for replacement anyway. At the same time we need to get fuel efficiency of transport up, and we need to get rid of the worst ways of getting fossil fuel (which have a fairly bad energy balance anway), such as brown coal and tar sand.
Re:What did we expect? (Score:3, Insightful)
Then perhaps we should prosecute those/any mothers who can't carry every conception to full term - for murder.
This is really one of the things that gets me about "personhood" legislation. I'm sure that what they want to do is stop abortion and contraception, but I'm equally sure that they haven't thought it through thoroughly.
Smoking near a pregnant woman? I'm sure there's a lawyer somewhere who would be happy to prosecute and/or sue you for endangering the foetus. The list of potential slights or potential injuries that could potentially be detrimental to a foetus could grow incredibly large in our litiginous society. Then think of employing a pregnant woman in that environment - but to do anything else would be discrimination - subject to lawsuit. The safest and cheapest course might be a 9 month paid leave of absence. Think of the possibilities!
Re:What did we expect? (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, you're right. Absolutely.
Religion kills people, and will likely kill a lot more.
Global warming kills people, and will likely kill a lot more.
Re:The problem is chicken little (Score:3, Insightful)
But there are still the matters of
No, those issues are just as well understood as the fact that the Earth is warming.
As far as I'm concerned, until our weather man can accurately predict at least 5 days out
You can't even predict the outcome of a single coin toss, yet you have the gall to claim that out of a thousand coin tosses, about 500 will come up tails? You simply can't know that!
Re:Public concern (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What did we expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
But is this position by the Democrats to allow the killing of not yet born children so important to hold on to?
Fail.
You may choose to believe that an 8-week old collection of cells is "a child". Fine. I support your right to do so, and would go further and say that you should conduct yourself accordingly, but you do not get to extend that belief (and let us make no mistake, it is a belief and nothing more) to others and how they conduct their lives. I'll say it again, you get to choose what you believe, always. You get to choose what others believe, never. So please, STFU already with the "Democrats are baby killers" bullshit, m'kay?
Re:What did we expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a group of us who do believe in God ... support of gun rights, strong military, etc)
I've never been able to understand how some people manage to reconcile belief in the Christian God with guns and military.
When they as WWJD? What Would Jesus Do? Surely they can't believe that he'd carry a firearm and cheer on a strong military. That's just not the man described in the New Testament at all.
That's because they're not "Christians" at all. I know lots and lots of people who call themselves Christians. I can count on one hand those that I would consider to be such. The rest? They're frightened and ignorant, and want desperately to believe that their concept of a supreme being is "on their side" in "the war on...(terror, drugs, prostitution, abortion, communism, brown people, etc.)". When you've been convinced that the terrorists are out to kill you and marry your daughters, or that "Democrats are baby killers", all that live and let live stuff preached by your messiah goes right the fuck out the window, and I mean all the way out. Point out the incongruity of their actions with the teachings of their messiah and you get, at best, confused silence. Cognitive dissonance at work.
Re:The problem is chicken little (Score:5, Insightful)
There are natural cycles DOES NOT MEAN THAT all variations are thus accountable.
This... is kind of the problem here.
First, we have natural climate variation.
Second, we have possible anthropogenic climate variation.
We know the former happens. This is pretty much a given. So to see whether the latter is significant, we *have* to analyse both. That's what climate scientists do; it's a basic and obvious step.
The conclusions they have come to, as a massive consensus, is that AGW is very much real and significant, and cannot be explained away by natural means. ... and then people like you come along and say, hey now, all you smart scientists, what about natural climate change?! I bet you weren't smart enough to think of that!!!!!
Re:What did we expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
All the fundamentalists have to realise is that God made them stewards, and isn't going to bail out their ass if they fail -- and that is the only basis needed to engage positively in the AGW debate. However, fundamentalists have allowed politics to inform their faith.
This won't work, for reasons you allude to in your last paragraph. I'll put it more bluntly: most fundamentalist "Christianity" in the USA has nothing to do with traditional Christian belief or ethics, it's just ignorant Red State tribalism. How else do you explain self-professed Christians who love the rich and hate the poor and downtrodden?
Re:What did we expect? (Score:2, Insightful)
Wanting the government to control what people can do with their lives is a left-wing trait. The "right" would allow personal choice.
Re:The problem is chicken little (Score:4, Insightful)
Before I do anything else, I want to address this:
"If the problem is CO2 being released into the atmosphere, then why don't they support nuclear power?"
Who are 'they', exactly? Climate scientists just tell us about what the climate is doing, and what we are doing to it. I don't think it's quite within their remit to support anything.
Re:What did we expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ummm, no. It is a human trait to want to control others. The left wants to protect you from your choices and the right wants to punish you for your choices. Both want to do it 'for your own good.'
To easily demonstrate that you are mistaken about the right, take the gay rights debate. One of the right's main talking points is that homosexuality is a choice. If they were for the freedom of choice, there wouldn't be a marriage equality debate. I should be able to choose to commit to another man as I would a women. Are we not equal to women? If the right was for the freedom of choice, why would there be a debate about Plan B or that herpes vaccine?
It is a simple human thing. Everybody is fine with the choices they agree with.
Re:The problem is chicken little (Score:4, Insightful)
While I'm not the original poster you are debating with here, I will concede that there may be some influence on the part of activities of mankind upon the global environment.
What I don't buy is the significance of that influence, or that the current situation is so dire that if we don't destroy all technology and go back to a hunter-gatherer society with a 99% reduction in world wide human population that we are doomed to extinction. It is the politics that are involved here and trying to decide where that line is between doing one thing that is insanely stupid like mass genocide and the other which is completely ignoring the impact of environmental pollution and thinking it should be our god given right to consume every resource to its utmost potential for greater profits and not giving a damn about how it impacts the planet.
There must be some point in between to make a balance. Attempts to try and control pollution of all forms have largely been successful in most 1st world countries, where environmental damage has been reversed and living more in harmony with this world has been demonstrated as a proven fact. The Hudson River in NYC is returning to a state where things can now live in that river again, you can breathe air in downtown Pittsburgh, and air quality in Los Angeles hasn't really become much worse than it was when I was just a little kid. Those are just a few examples I can point to where there have been some successes on something larger than just the efforts of one person and involve whole communities making a difference because they have made a difference.
Given that there have been some tremendous successes in raising environmental consciousness, where does the line get drawn in terms of what action need to take place? It is wrong to say that some measures suggested to "control carbon emissions" simply aren't going to work? Is there a serious discussion on some of those sequestration systems about what harmful effects they may cause for future generations? Is there a reason we must act and do something rash right now without holding a measured public debate over the real issues involved? Is the world really going to end in a decade if those rash actions are not done right now?
Arguing over the "science" of "global warming" or "global cooling" is mostly naval grazing compared to the very real policy issues about how to deal with environmental damage in general. Those trying to "prove global warming" in many ways really don't care if there is environmental damage and in some ways even helps their cause if that damage increases so they can have larger research budgets to "fight global warming".
Re:The problem is chicken little (Score:4, Insightful)