• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Many of the politicians are old enough that the global warming wont affect them - they'll be dead when the climatic effects get bad, therefore they couldn't care less.
 
shadron said:
Why is it your impression that the ozone layer breakdown was not a major cause for concern? Perhaps by 1999 is wasn't, but according to NASA (see the maps at ozone depletionWP, "Public Policy", we came close enough to have pretty thoroughly destroying the layer by 2050 to have been a major plant growing crisis.

It seems to me that we were damned lucky to have been able to mount a successful legal campaign to ban use of CFCs before the same reactionary political forces were able to come to bear on it, and by arousing those forces they were much more ready to react when global warming started being recognized. There was pushback from the CFC industry, though that lessened as CFC patents began to expire in the 1980s, and they began to explore new gasses, such as the HCFCs, which are the focus of a current controversy in which Chinese manufacturers feature.
Click to expand...

The Montreal Protocol is (was?) often held up as a model for international action on climate change, but as far as I can tell, it is forgotten just how hard a fight that was. And this dealt with a class of chemicals for which a replacement was able to be found with some ease. Ultimately, it didn't really need a wholesale reconfiguration of the economy, which is what a proper reaction to climate change requires. It was this fact that ultimately allowed the Montreal Protocol to succeed, that the replacement was relatively painless (though there's a measure of irony in just how potent HCFCs, especially r-134a, are as greenhouse gases).

And in spite of this, a black market in CFCs still sprang up. The simple fact remains that humans are incredible resistant to change, especially when the threat is seemingly distant, nebulous and hard to understand.

I remember reading in another thread about how science produces effects that are counter-intuitive to common sense. A perfect example of this is how as small as 400 ppm of CO2 can have such potentially devastating consequences. But the chemistry is clear, and has been for quite a long time. But it is directly as a consequence of this that appeals to common sense work. Failing that, good old obfuscation and FUD work just fine. We've certainly seen plenty of it in Australia over the last few years.

Matt
 
supaluminal said:
The Montreal Protocol is (was?) often held up as a model for international action on climate change, but as far as I can tell, it is forgotten just how hard a fight that was. And this dealt with a class of chemicals for which a replacement was able to be found with some ease. Ultimately, it didn't really need a wholesale reconfiguration of the economy, which is what a proper reaction to climate change requires. It was this fact that ultimately allowed the Montreal Protocol to succeed, that the replacement was relatively painless (though there's a measure of irony in just how potent HCFCs, especially r-134a, are as greenhouse gases).
Click to expand...

Therein lies the core of the problem. There's a competing theory that the far left, their theories about the Glories of Communism or Heavy Handed Socialism being shot down by the brute fact of the differences in the length of the waiting lines outside bakeries, now needed a new rationale to control their One True Enemy, Big Business.

And that ecological concerns would be that political narrative vector to take control. And given it would be command and control, we would all suffer worse-off lives, as evidenced by the actual results of command-and-control economies over the decades.


I'll take my chances in a free economy, whatever it brings, over command and control. Does anyone seriously think that, with the worst of global warming, as long as the economy remained free, we'd somehow end off worse off than people in North Korea?
 
I known my skepticism was base not on doubting the science but the “Al Gore-ifacation” of it, which took a scientific issue and turned it into a wealth redistribution scheme.
I never doubted the fact that human beings are irresponsible pigs when the environment is involved and the fact that we are the only creature on the planet that change it’s behavior it’s our job to do so.
But by making it political makes “global warming” open to opinion
 
I've been keeping tabs on the media reporting of certain things -- and they are definitely out to over-hype and sensationalize things.

There's an island sinking somewhere, and the natives (not many of them) are running out of land and may have to abandon it. Seas rising in the context of global warming are mentioned, but in the fine print of the article they admit it is, in fact, the island sinking.


Another article, shortly after the big tsunami a few years ago that killed so many in the Indian ocean, talks about global warming and the seas rising "just like the tsunami". This conjures horrible images, which is no doubt what was desired. In the fine print, they state the rise will be about 30 feet, AKA how high the tsunami was, but slowly, over the course of 100-300 years.


Both on CNN.
 
Beerina said:
Therein lies the core of the problem. There's a competing theory that the far left, their theories about the Glories of Communism or Heavy Handed Socialism being shot down by the brute fact of the differences in the length of the waiting lines outside bakeries, now needed a new rationale to control their One True Enemy, Big Business.

And that ecological concerns would be that political narrative vector to take control.
Click to expand...
So all those scientists, NASA, the Bush Administration etc., just tools of the far left? That's a Conspiracy Theory.

But so what if the 'far left' thinks that ecological concerns will give them a 'new rationale'. Does that mean that the ecology shouldn't be a concern to the rest of us? Do we have to do the opposite of whatever they want?

News Flash: the far left want people to live and be happy. What should we do??? :rolleyes:

I'll take my chances in a free economy, whatever it brings, over command and control. Does anyone seriously think that, with the worst of global warming, as long as the economy remained free, we'd somehow end off worse off than people in North Korea?
Click to expand...
It doesn't have to be a choice between Somalia and North Korea!

I'll take my chances in a mixed economy with government oversight (just like we have now). A free economy has no mechanism to deal with externalites such as global warming. By the time it reacts, the damage has already been done. We would indeed be much worse off.

I've been keeping tabs on the media reporting of certain things -- and they are definitely out to over-hype and sensationalize things.
Click to expand...
News Flash: the Media over-hypes and sensationalizes things! Film at Eleven...
 
Beerina said:
I'll take my chances in a free economy, whatever it brings, over command and control. Does anyone seriously think that, with the worst of global warming, as long as the economy remained free, we'd somehow end off worse off than people in North Korea?
Click to expand...

Where exactly does this mythical "free economy" you opine about exist?
 
Personally, I suspect the disconnect stems from the fact that much of the basic, underlying science supporting these conclusions is not being distributed to general public.

The basic premise of AGW is that average world temperature has increased by a degree or so over the past century. The question that immediately leaps to my mind is: how do we know this? How is the average world temperature calculated now? How was it calculated a hundred years ago? WAS it calculated a hundred years ago, or are we now determining this information based on historical records? How accurate are those historical records?

Even if you accept that the temperature information is correct, you're now faced with the question of how we can know what's causing it. How do we know that sunspots, or volcanic activity, or natural weather patterns aren't more to blame than greenhouse gases?

None of the televised news stories that I have seen addressing Global Warming have even pretended to address these questions. Instead, the media focuses almost exclusively on what the projected consequences of the problem are going to be. We're told incessantly about the future dangers of rising sea levels, glacial erosion, and wildlife extinctions, but for obvious reasons, the general public has grown a bit weary of doomsday predictions.

In terms of public education, the Global Warming debate has generally taken the tone of "all reputable scientists believe this, so you should to." I suspect the general public doesn't have quite the same confidence in "all reputable scientists" as most posters here.

Explain the problem in terms that allow people to reach the same conclusion that climatologists have, and you'll sway public opinion. Keep telling people they're idiots if they don't believe this, and they'll simply entrench themselves further in their position.
 
kedo1981 said:
I known my skepticism was base not on doubting the science but the “Al Gore-ifacation” of it, which took a scientific issue and turned it into a wealth redistribution scheme.I never doubted the fact that human beings are irresponsible pigs when the environment is involved and the fact that we are the only creature on the planet that change it’s behavior it’s our job to do so.
But by making it political makes “global warming” open to opinion
Click to expand...


Skepticism is the default position of scientists.

And as long as politicians continue hyping the science but respond with "solutions" that can't possibly solve the problem, then it really won't matter what is happening except on a political level.
 
A small part of it is the name. By calling it Global Warming instead of Global Climate Change, Rush Limbaugh's listeners actually think he is insightful when he says things like "If Global Warming is real than how come Florida had record cold temperatures last week."
 
shadron said:
Why is it your impression that the ozone layer breakdown was not a major cause for concern? Perhaps by 1999 is wasn't, but according to NASA (see the maps at ozone depletionWP, "Public Policy", we came close enough to have pretty thoroughly destroying the layer by 2050 to have been a major plant growing crisis.

It seems to me that we were damned lucky to have been able to mount a successful legal campaign to ban use of CFCs before the same reactionary political forces were able to come to bear on it, and by arousing those forces they were much more ready to react when global warming started being recognized. There was pushback from the CFC industry, though that lessened as CFC patents began to expire in the 1980s, and they began to explore new gasses, such as the HCFCs, which are the focus of a current controversy in which Chinese manufacturers feature.
Click to expand...

I was wrong to phrase it that way, but most people aren't aware in my experience that it was a real danger that we changed by our own actions.
 
Beerina said:
Therein lies the core of the problem. There's a competing theory that the far left, their theories about the Glories of Communism or Heavy Handed Socialism being shot down by the brute fact of the differences in the length of the waiting lines outside bakeries, now needed a new rationale to control their One True Enemy, Big Business.
Click to expand...

The far-left is just as dismissive of AGW, but they put it down to a Western imperialist plot to deny the undeveloped world cheap energy.

And that ecological concerns would be that political narrative vector to take control. And given it would be command and control, we would all suffer worse-off lives, as evidenced by the actual results of command-and-control economies over the decades.
Click to expand...

Utter nonsense, isn't it? The same argument was used against control of CFC's, by mostly the same people.


I'll take my chances in a free economy, whatever it brings, over command and control. Does anyone seriously think that, with the worst of global warming, as long as the economy remained free, we'd somehow end off worse off than people in North Korea?
Click to expand...

Who's "we" in that sentence?

Let us know how it works out for you anyway.
 
Beerina said:
I've been keeping tabs on the media reporting of certain things -- and they are definitely out to over-hype and sensationalize things.

There's an island sinking somewhere, and the natives (not many of them) are running out of land and may have to abandon it. Seas rising in the context of global warming are mentioned, but in the fine print of the article they admit it is, in fact, the island sinking.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find the "sinking island" line is a lie. Sea-levels are rising due to AGW, and those few people (not of the "we", I assume) will lose the place they live on. It's quite an issue for them.
 
A large part of the disconnect is simply because in the 1950's up until the early 1980's , we were always told that "Scientists say we are heading for another Ice Age"--then they "Changed their minds--we're warming up!"
What with "science experts" (Nominated for the position by media idiots) telling us one thing, then the next day another, on everything form climate to bacon to coffee, older folks ran out of mental resilience to accept science as fact (look at the age of the folks resisting).
I now believe that there is truth to the matter (The evidence is overwhelming), but remain skeptical as to the root causes...
 
CapelDodger said:
I think you'll find the "sinking island" line is a lie. Sea-levels are rising due to AGW, and those few people (not of the "we", I assume) will lose the place they live on. It's quite an issue for them.
Click to expand...

The island was sinking. This was CNN's report, not mine. Nor should that an island is sinking be unusual -- there are any number of such regions (e.g. Louisiana delta). You are confusing the report with your mental model of reality, which only includes that any actual story is just lies.

In any case, the point was it was misused for rhetorical purposes.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom