Global Warmers Promote Dark Ages, Permanently

[The Don]

Warmers would be easier to talk to if they didn't get spittle all over you attacking in particular the US.

To be fair the US energy use per capita and total energy use does kind of put it in the firing line.

Heck, if the US (and Canada) could reduce their per capita energy consumption to German or UK levels then they'd be halved.

And these nations have concrete energy reduction plans in place.

Even if you are a Global Warming Denier then the unfettered use of scarce natural resources is still something that should be discouraged.

 

[Upchurch]

Warmers would be easier to talk to if....

Do you think science is wrong?

 

[Upchurch]

You can't do that, we have The One True Thread for global warming debates.

I'll admit that I don't know what The One True Thread is. I'm curious if people are actually rejecting science based on political ideology.

 

[The Painter]

Do you think science is wrong?

Science has often been wrong. In fact an important part of science (and more frequent) is failure, being wrong.

I'll admit that I don't know what The One True Thread is. I'm curious if people are actually rejecting science based on political ideology.

I'm sure there are. I am also sure of the opposite of what you said. I'm sure there are people who believe based of politics and not science.

 

[varwoche]

Warmers would be easier to talk to if they didn't get spittle all over you attacking in particular the US.

Given the OP, I find it pretty funny that it is warmer spittle that draws your attention.

 

[Upchurch]

Science has often been wrong. In fact an important part of science (and more frequent) is failure, being wrong.

Well, yes. I think more important is that it is self-correcting.

Regardless, there is as much consensus on the science of global warming as just about anything else. Every scientific group of any national or international standing either accepts or is non-committal on the subject of global warming and that humans have had an effect on it.

I'm sure there are. I am also sure of the opposite of what you said. I'm sure there are people who believe based of politics and not science.

Possibly, but the science is sound. My question is whether there is anyone here who rejects global warming on political ideology, because there isn't any scientific basis to do so.

 

[AlBell]

Do you think science is wrong?

Not a bit. Per APS:

•Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
•Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
•The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.

Darn right.

It's the politics masquerading as science that follow that I'm not quite as sure about.

What's you take? YR 2100 temp up 6 deg C, sea level up 20 ft? Or is it temp up 2 deg F, sea level up 1 ft continuing to exit that last ice-age?

Either way, I'd like to see a carbon tax imposed by every country where oil or coal is extracted. Where do you guess the money will go in China? Russia? OPEC? Brazil? Other less significant producers, Africa & S/C America?

UK/US/Norway might actually try to improve on or build energy-source replacement technology ... but probably not.

 

[DavidJames]

Possibly, but the science is sound. My question is whether there is anyone here who rejects global warming on political ideology, because there isn't any scientific basis to do so.

I doubt you'll get anyone to admit that. They will disagree with your first sentence and the dance begins.

 

[Upchurch]

Not a bit. Per APS:

•Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
•Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
•The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.

Darn right.

That's all I wanted to know.

 

[BenBurch]

That's all I wanted to know.

He's right that the interpretation on HOW FAST things will get bad is still developing. However, nobody believes it won't get bad. So the political argument becomes; "Do we take possibly expensive steps now to moderate a bad event that we might not live to see, or do we give future generations the middle finger and live as inexpensively as we can for as long as possible?"

 

[Corsair 115]

It's the politics masquerading as science that follow that I'm not quite as sure about.

Example?

What's you take? YR 2100 temp up 6 deg C, sea level up 20 ft? Or is it temp up 2 deg F, sea level up 1 ft continuing to exit that last ice-age?

Either scenario means changes that will require expensive adaption. A one foot rise in sea level may not seem like much, but that amounts to a heck of a lot of coastline around the world which will no longer exist. And for those nations with land near sea level (such as the Maldives), even a small rise in sea level may prove disastrous.

 

[daenku32]

He's right that the interpretation on HOW FAST things will get bad is still developing. However, nobody believes it won't get bad. So the political argument becomes; "Do we take possibly expensive steps now to moderate a bad event that we might not live to see, or do we give future generations the middle finger and live as inexpensively as we can for as long as possible?"

I'm hoping the political arguments actually reach that point. A bunch of people who don't think global warming has anything to do with human CO2 emissions just got elected into office.

 

[Trakar]

Not a bit. Per APS:

•Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
•Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
•The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.

Darn right.

It's the politics masquerading as science that follow that I'm not quite as sure about...

First, perhaps it is best to look at the actual statements by the APS rather than relying your paraphrases:

National Policy
07.1 CLIMATE CHANGE(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

Now are you accepting of and in agreement with their statement on the issue, or does you understanding differ from this assessment?

 

[AlBell]

Either scenario means changes that will require expensive adaption. A one foot rise in sea level may not seem like much, but that amounts to a heck of a lot of coastline around the world which will no longer exist. And for those nations with land near sea level (such as the Maldives), even a small rise in sea level may prove disastrous.

Time for the Maldivians to either build a dike or move to higher ground.

I'm surprised you didn't cite Bangladesh. They're already underwater months in every year.

 

[AlBell]

First, perhaps it is best to look at the actual statements by the APS rather than relying your paraphrases:

No paraphrasing; directly from the APS response to Lewis calling them money-grubbing charlatans.

Now are you accepting of and in agreement with their statement on the issue, or does you understanding differ from this assessment?

"Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, .... ";

yup, full agreement. Of course the real request is for $$$; what Lewis was complaining about.

The rest, not so much.

 

[Chaos]

Example?





Either scenario means changes that will require expensive adaption. A one foot rise in sea level may not seem like much, but that amounts to a heck of a lot of coastline around the world which will no longer exist. And for those nations with land near sea level (such as the Maldives), even a small rise in sea level may prove disastrous.

The Maldives are not the US, and as such could be the far side of the moon as far as conservatives are concerned.

 

[Corsair 115]

Time for the Maldivians to either build a dike or move to higher ground.

So you are in favour of adaption rather than mitigation? Guess what, both approaches costs money. You can pay some now or pay a whole lot more later.

The U.S. is not going to escape the consequence of a warming global climate. It'll be affected too. You might want to give this this document a read. It's a 196-page PDF file containing a detailed report on the changes and probable effects the U.S. would see in the future in two different CO2 emission scenarios. The report was produced by the USGCRP, with NOAA the lead agency. It's sobering reading.

A single small example for the Northeastern section of the U.S.: the winter recreation industry (e.g. skiing, snowmobiling, etc.) in the area is worth some $7.6 billion to the regional economy. A warming climate in the region means shorter winters with considerably less snowfall which in turn means a serious impact on that economic activity. Quoting from the report:

Warmer winters will shorten the average ski and snowboard seasons, increase artificial snowmaking requirements, and drive up operating costs. While snowmaking can enhance the prospects for ski resort success, it requires a great deal of water and energy, as well as very cold nights, which are becoming less frequent. Without the opportunity to benefit from snowmaking, the prospects for the snowmobiling industry are even worse. Most of the region is likely to have a marginal or non-existent snowmobile season by mid-century.

Snowmobiling accounts for some $3 billion of that $7.6 billion total. That means an industry which now contributes some $3 billion to the regional economy may cease to exist in fifty years. That surely will have a lot of ramifications.

And that's just one small example of the kind of negative economic effects climate change can cause.

 

[johnny karate]

So you are in favour of adaption rather than mitigation? Guess what, both approaches costs money. You can pay some now or pay a whole lot more later.

QFT

I'm surprised AlBell didn't suggest the Maldivians should just eat cake.

 

[AlBell]

So you are in favour of adaption rather than mitigation? Guess what, both approaches costs money. You can pay some now or pay a whole lot more later.

Me? Thanks, I'll go for later.

The U.S. is not going to escape the consequence of a warming global climate. It'll be affected too. You might want to give this this document a read. It's a 196-page PDF file containing a detailed report on the changes and probable effects the U.S. would see in the future in two different CO2 emission scenarios. The report was produced by the USGCRP, with NOAA the lead agency. It's sobering reading.

I'm sure it is. Nothing gets past peer review that doesn't have the OMG! SkyIsFalling! front and center.

A single small example for the Northeastern section of the U.S.: the winter recreation industry (e.g. skiing, snowmobiling, etc.) in the area is worth some $7.6 billion to the regional economy. A warming climate in the region means shorter winters with considerably less snowfall which in turn means a serious impact on that economic activity. Quoting from the report:




Snowmobiling accounts for some $3 billion of that $7.6 billion total. That means an industry which now contributes some $3 billion to the regional economy may cease to exist in fifty years. That surely will have a lot of ramifications.

And that's just one small example of the kind of negative economic effects climate change can cause.

Did they bother to look for off-setting positive effects?

At any rate, how much are you willing to cough up--today--for 50-year-forward hypotheticals?

 

[dudalb]

Me? Thanks, I'll go for later.


I'm sure it is. Nothing gets past peer review that doesn't have the OMG! SkyIsFalling! front and center.


Did they bother to look for off-setting positive effects?

At any rate, how much are you willing to cough up--today--for 50-year-forward hypotheticals?

Funny,you can say the same thing about the Budget Deficit.....