Climate Change must be tackled NOW

Scrat wrote:

I guess that's where we differ. I do not see any need to act on the issue of global warming. None at all.

Neither do I. Looking at the scientific mainstream opinion, I have come to the conclusion that global warming is real, but mostly harmless. Now how did you decide that global warming doesn't need to be acted on? Surely the science had something to do with it?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

That's quite possible, but "destroying the Earth" -- which is what you were talking about -- would surely count as a multiple trillion dollar damage.

in a destroyed world a trillion dollar isn't worth anything

Thomas wrote:

On the other hand, global warming might just as well create entirely new ecosystems that would never have emerged without it. How does that figure into your calculation?

It could create entirely new ecosystems, but nature had million of years time to develop such running ecosystems. Of course we could eradict animals and plants and give nature the time to evolve again. But is this a good idea? Ask the next (perhaps 10, 100 or more) generations if they would like to live in such a world.

Thomas wrote:

I don't know where the benefit is, but it must be somewhere, or else drivers wouldn't choose to put up with traffic jams and pass on the public transportation.

My argument was that you don't have to invest that much money in inventing new technology to contain greenhous gases emission. Sometimes it would be cheaper to change the behaviour of the people. Only because the majority of the people does something, their behavior has not to be a good idea.

0 Replies

It's really up to us. If every family in the US replaced one regular lightbulb with an energy saving model, we'd reduce global warming pollution by more than 90 billion pounds -- the same as taking 7.5 million cars off the road.

Act Green (with GP and CD :wink: ).

0 Replies

wolf, If we replaced only two bulbs, we would not have a energy shortage, and our rates should come down - especially for those of us living in California. c.i.

0 Replies

Thomas - You have a rare gift for talking down to someone even while agreeing with him. Confused

0 Replies

Quote:

Report by the E.P.A. Leaves Out Data on Climate ChangeThe Environmental Protection Agency is preparing to publish a draft report next week on the state of the environment, but after editing by the White House, a long section describing risks from rising global temperatures has been whittled to a few noncommittal paragraphs.

The report, commissioned in 2001 by the agency's administrator, Christie Whitman, was intended to provide the first comprehensive review of what is known about various environmental problems, where gaps in understanding exist and how to fill them.

Agency officials said it was tentatively scheduled to be released early next week, before Mrs. Whitman steps down on June 27, ending a troubled time in office that often put her at odds with President Bush.

Drafts of the climate section, with changes sought by the White House, were given to The New York Times yesterday by a former E.P.A. official, along with earlier drafts and an internal memorandum in which some officials protested the changes. Two agency officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the documents were authentic...

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/19/politics/19CLIM.html

0 Replies

How significant. Thank you Blatham.

0 Replies

No one should be surprised at the existence of a persistent group of global warming advocates within the EPA. They seek new processes to regulate, new rule making authority, and an expanded and continuing role for their bureaucracy. This is a natural, predictable behavior on the part of a government agency. It certainly doesn't mean that they are right in their judgements. I have had considerable professional/business experience with the EPA and can testify from personal experience that their power seeking impulses are a good deal stronger than their scientific ones.

0 Replies

Not right in their judgments??

Quote:

The world’s leaders, if they are wise, will make it their business to find a way to pay for these solutions. Climate, ecological systems and society can all recoup after stress, but only if they are not exposed to prolonged challenge or to one disruption after another. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, established by the United Nations, calculates that halting the ongoing rise in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will require a whopping 60 to 70 percent reduction in emissions.

I worry that effective corrective measures will not be instituted soon enough. Climate does not necessarily change gradually. The multiple factors that are now destabilizing the global climate system could cause it to jump abruptly out of its current state. At any time, the world could suddenly become much hotter or even much colder. Such a sudden, catastrophic change is the ultimate health risk—one that must be avoided at all costs.

Scientific American

This game of dice you conservatives wish to play with the world is the most arrogant and irresponsible attitude I've ever met. I don't easily say this, but: shame on you.

0 Replies

Wolf,

I believe that a "whopping 60 to 70 percent reduction in emissions" would undoubtedly call into play the point Thomas made earlier about the net worth to humanity of such a remedy. He made a valid point on this aspect of the matter and you did not respond to it. Now you resurrect it and use it as "proof" that your original unsupported claims of impending disaster were correct. This suggests to me that you have not been listening or just don't seriously consider reasoned arguments that don't support your position.

Do you believe that the "Scientific American" is the last indisputable source of revealed truth?

I would also be interested to learn exactly how you would propose to achieve such a reduction. Would you support the increased use of emission-free nuclear power? Do you believe that wind turbines or solar power could ever yield more than about 20% of our electrical power requirements? How would you propose to deal with the problem of leakage resulting from the ubiquitous use of methane powered fuel cells (methane is, by mass, about 25 times as effective a greenhouse gas as CO2.). How would you produce the hydrogen that so many claim will answer all our needs? Have you considered the problem of greenhouse gas and particulate emissions from the undeveloped world? Per unit of production it is far worse than that of the developed world. I refer you here to the South Asian 'brown cloud' recently addressed in some scientific journals.

It is relatively easy to rage about this or that imagined problem: very difficult to think one's way to a useful solution.

0 Replies

george

We've been into this discussion previously. Above, you rhetorically ask whether Scientific American is the 'last indisputable source of revealed truth?' Naughty man. You already know that Science, Nature, and Scientific American ALL published special editions on climate and global warming to counter all the things Lomborg got wrong in his book. You already know that the large majority of climate scientists hold global warming to be real and human activity as the most likely main contributor.

You and Setanta both forwarded the following argument...

"EPA scientists, indeed many/most climate scientists have a financial stake in the continued suggestion that global warming is real - thus conclusions they might make that it is real are suspect"

but it is the worst possible argument you might advance (other than as an intelligence-style black PR maneuver - to discredit the speaker) because IT IS PRETTY CLEAR WHERE THE FINANCIAL VESTED INTERESTS REALLY SIT...with the energy industries and the scientists they fund.

0 Replies

Blatham,

I recognize that nearly all scientists acknowledge that greenhouse gasses are accumulating in the atmosphere, and that this phenomenon will act to increase global temperatures. I differ from Thomas in that I do not accept that this necessarily means that the result will be monotone global warming. There are many highly non-linear aspects to the dynamic of terrestrial atmospherics and even the relatively simple problem of the carbon cycle.

I completely agree with Thomas that some degree of warming is a likely result, at least for the short term, that the net effect of it on humanity could be either good or bad in various aspects, but not likely decisive in any, and that the cost of correcting it, if that can be done, is certainly far greater than any benefit that could result.

I have a good deal of personal experience in the environmental business and have run companies and divisions of companies heavily involved in the design and construction of various environmental remediation solutions, and even consulting services to the EPA on global warming. I can assure you that they made their desired conclusions quite clear to their consultants long before the studies were done.

While industry is quite capable of using its money and power too further its own ends, so are government bureaucracies quite willing to use their power and our money to further their organizational ends. You can't postulate one and summarily reject the other.

0 Replies

It's one thing to make a claim on global warning, and quite another to get the world community to act on it. c.i.

0 Replies

wolf wrote:

This game of dice you conservatives wish to play with the world is the most arrogant and irresponsible attitude I've ever met. I don't easily say this, but: shame on you.

Nonsense. You say things like that all the time. Clearly it comes quite easily to you.

0 Replies

Yeah, but you started ! Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

I just wish we could all agree that countering climate change is important. There is a good chance that if we leave the world in the hands of fossil energy corporations and their internautic representatives, the next generation will grow up under an unbearably chaotic atmosphere. If that doesn't warrant some excitement, I don't know what does.

So pardon me, but the need to be apologetic about this is quite baffling. The pseudosceptics should really be the ones who offer a mea culpa.

0 Replies

wolf wrote:

I just wish we could all agree that countering climate change is important.

So far, so good. But how is it changing, what are the real causes; if the changes are bad, can they be reversed - and at what cost? Is the game worth the candle, in other words? If you are sure you know the answers, I doubt you know the difference between fact and opinion.

0 Replies

roger, -- well stated.

wolf, What is a "pseudoskeptic" ? Apart from an empty attempt at the denigration of those who do not share your views, is there any meaning there ?

0 Replies

I'll be short because this is tiring.

Environmental pseudosceptics know full well that climate change is a phenomenon caused by greenhouse gases, of which humankind has produced a tremendous increase. Their scepticism about climate change stems from economical rather than scientific views.

0 Replies

wolf, Let's say you're right. Now what? Just because you and some scientists claim global warming, do you think that will influence the people of this world to change their ways? I doubt it. Maybe, you know something we don't. I'm sure of one thing; nothing is going to change any time soon. c.i.

0 Replies

Climate Change must be tackled NOW

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know