Boring is a good thing!
Of course, once the discussion shifts from "it's not happening," to "what do we do about it," it becomes largely (if not entirely) a public policy (politics) issue.
And just because we define the problem doesn't mean that we'd all agree to the same idea of appropriate response.
So, Given the range of climate change over the next 10, 50, 100 years, what course of action do you propose and what evidences support your perspective?
(open to all - I think it is time that this discussion begins happening more)
Say what you want, but I have been opening up that line of discussion for quite a while now...with mixed results. Sequestration in agricultural soils is the only proposed solution large enough at our current technology level that doesn't simultaneously starve or bankrupt humanity. I am pretty sure about that. Schemes that reduce carbon emissions are good, but expensive and useless at removing carbon from the atmosphere. Remember, just reducing emissions isn't enough. We have to remove CO2 already in the atmosphere down to around to ~250+/- PPM from ~400+/- PPM. Lowering emissions or making emissions more costly with a tax, doesn't sequester what's already there. Even if we stopped all industry emissions 100% tomorrow, global warming would continue for thousands of years, unless we make changes in agriculture that restore the carbon cycle into the soils. See nature has ways to check and balance the climate. You get climatic swings, but eventually looking into deep geological time, it balances out. However, at this stage, approximately 40% of the land surface of the planet is under agriculture. Not just agriculture, but forms of agriculture that are incapable of functioning to restore that balance. We have overwhelmed the ecosystem.
But what we humans can do at our technology level is change agriculture in a way that restores that balance. We can't just stop agriculture, or we starve. We can't just stop emissions, because it doesn't sequester carbon. But what we can do is change agriculture in a way that sequesters carbon while simultaneously producing food in abundance. If we do that well enough, we can still have a certain level of CO2 emissions that comes with living in a modern industrial society. (efforts to use modern technology to lower that need are very helpful but incapable of a solution alone) Just as long as our emissions rate is roughly balanced with our sequestration rate. (once we have lowered the 400ppm C down to something reasonable)
You were right to say it is a public policy (politics) issue. Politically, the liberals are misusing the carbon taxes in many cases. Generally they are more interested in social change than actually solving the problem. Even worse, the conservatives are denying the problem even exists at all. Mostly because they are fighting that social change the liberals are attempting. We have to get past all that and attack the problem of AGW directly. Remember, the science is neutral.
Now Traker, one thing about this thread. This is a science and technology section of a skeptic/critical thinking forum. So politics aside, part of critical thinking is backing up claims with evidence. So I would like to post a few links even though I probably posted most of them before.
First link. The science behind vegetation actually affecting climate historically into deep geological time.
Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling
Notice that the primary driver on Land is the grasslands. Grasslands that are currently almost entirely under agricultural management.
2) Next the evidence 40% of the land surface is actually under agricultural management.
Farming Claims Almost Half Earth's Land, New Maps Show
3) Next a discussion of a couple ways that management can change to sequester carbon.
RESTORING THE CLIMATE THROUGH CAPTURE AND STORAGE OF SOIL CARBON THROUGH HOLISTIC PLANNED GRAZING
Mitigating livestock greenhouse gas balance through carbon sequestration in grasslands
Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie
No-Till Case Study, Richter Farm: Cover Crop Cocktails in a Forage-Based System
Why pasture cropping is such a Big Deal
So in conclusion, I propose that instead of denying the problem, conservatives address the issue with a political solution that maintains the ability for industry to continue, food production in agriculture to continue, and simultaneously actually addresses the problem of excess CO2 in the atmosphere. They can meet the liberals that hate big oil or big coal 1/2 way. This way we can still maintain modern industrial society, still eat, and yet improve the environment, all at the same time and at a profit!
