global warming gets a timeline

[SirBruce]

You're not really following the argument at all.  You're still using ignorance as a license to alter the environment in unknown ways.

Yes.  It IS a license to do anything.

We cant NEVER know EVERYTHING.  It is impossible to live one's life not doing things you don't know the outcome of.  You can only live life doing things based upon what the best available evidence and thinking you have is of the outcome.

It could rain elephants tomorrow.  But given what we know about the universe, that seems pretty slim.  So it makes sense to live your life without that as a concern.  On the other hand, putting a loaded gun to your head and pulling the trigger we know is probably not a good idea.

Global warming is somewhere in the middle, but I'm not convinced the evidence that it's bad and made significantly so by humans is enough to warrant changes in behavior.

Scientific studies like the one linked above indicate that you are damaging the envionment.  At the very least, you are changing it.  And when someone asks if this alteration is for better or for worse, you say "I don't really understand this environment thing.  It might hurt or help."

There are other studies that say differently, as you well know.

And yes, that's what I say.  The same goes with farming... I don't really know if farming a particular plot of land hurts or helps the environement on a global scale.  But if people want to farm their land, let them.  The benefits we DO know to that outweigh the unknown hurt or help to the environment.  Same goes with spewing out CO2 that affects global warming.

Bruce

[Mesozoic]

Yes. It IS a license to do anything.

We cant NEVER know EVERYTHING.

By that logic murder is OK until someone conclusively determines the nature of the afterlife.  Even then, it would still be OK until you personally become convinced that the afterlife is not better than life on Earth.  For all you know, you're helping the man you murdered.

There are other studies that say differently, as you well know.

Yes.

Cite one, as Koboshi did, and we can discuss its merits.  But the very existance of contrary studies does not prove your case.

[daveNYC]

The same goes with farming... I don't really know if farming a particular plot of land hurts or helps the environement on a global scale.  But if people want to farm their land, let them.  The benefits we DO know to that outweigh the unknown hurt or help to the environment.  Same goes with spewing out CO2 that affects global warming.

Bruce

Didn't the dust bowl teach us that crappy farming methods fuck things up?  Sadly, the lesson was learned the hard way.  Which is something I'd like to avoid with anything involving climate change.

[Daeven]

Ok. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it is 100% demonstrable that CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

Now what?

How do you convince people to stop buying SUV's?  How are you going to improve diesel emissions? Are you willing to scrap all coal plants and switch to nuclear? No? Then how are we going to produce power? Orbital Mirrors with mega watt microwave beams that can cause massive devastation if they mis-target?

Or even more practical, are you going to buy all of the forest in the Pacific Northwest, the Amazon Basin, and any place else with lots of trees to improve our CO2 sinks? Or how about seeding plankton everywhere?

In short once you've cut CO2 emissions, then what? Because all of that accumulated CO2 is up there still.

Cutting CO2 emissions doesn't magically solve anything unless it is across the board (and that means India, China and other developing nations have to play along - not stick it to the USA al la Kyoto) AND something is done to actively reduce active CO2 within the atmosphere.

And the one thing I haven't seen anyone address is how we do this without going back to living in waddle and daub huts.

'Think Globally. Act Locally' is a great slogan. But other than driving my VLEV rated car, I'm not quite certain what all the doomsayers expect of me. Hell - Id buy a Hydrogen combustion engine powered vehicle the instant one came out, but I don't see any of those either.

Rambling aside, weather is a massively complex System. While I think we can probably influence things, the idea that we can either fix or break it is pretty damned arrogant which is kind of Bruce's point.

At the end of the day, the best solution would be for all of you to put your money where your mouth is. Buy a hybrid. Don't buy a car that gets less than 30MPG city. Oh. You can't afford it? Then why are you driving hypocrite?

[SirBruce]

Yes. It IS a license to do anything.

We cant NEVER know EVERYTHING.

By that logic murder is OK until someone conclusively determines the nature of the afterlife.

No, the available evidence already shows (to me) that murder isn't OK, regardless of the afterlife.

Even then, it would still be OK until you personally become convinced that the afterlife is not better than life on Earth.  For all you know, you're helping the man you murdered.

Could be, but you don't KNOW that to be so.  Again, decide on what you know.  My argument isn't that we don't know anything about global warming.  I'm saying what we DO know doesn't show whether it's good or bad, or fully evaluate the consequences in a more broader sense.  (Like, killing a man trying to kill you.)

[

There are other studies that say differently, as you well know.

Yes.

Cite one, as Koboshi did, and we can discuss its merits.  But the very existance of contrary studies does not prove your case.

But I am not here to solve the global warming question in this forum and discuss the merits of individuals studies.  I simply expressed my evaluation of the total information to date, which is, again, all the things I originally summarized... your continued attempt to simplify it constantly mischaracterizes the nuances of what I said in the first place.

Bruce

[SirBruce]

Didn't the dust bowl teach us that crappy farming methods fuck things up?  Sadly, the lesson was learned the hard way.  Which is something I'd like to avoid with anything involving climate change.

But if you had applied that logic to farming, we'd never have undergone the Neolithic revolution to get to a place where we could have BETTER farming.  Overall, crappy farming was better than NO farming.  But GOOD farming was better than crappy farming.  But usually you have to go through the crapping something first before you can figure out how to do it better.

Bruce

[Alluvian]

I am with Daeven on this one.  Bruce is abit out there for me, but I can see where he is coming from.  Bruce, you have to learn to state your case and then shutup though.  If others agree they will say so.  If they don't they will say so.  Nobody will change their minds based on a fucking internet thread on a video game/movie site.  So don't try and convince anyone of anything.  And your attempts to constantly defend yourself (SirBrucing) are exactly why people attack or hate you in the first place.


I can see evidence that the climate is changing.  I see no evidence that anyone actually knows where the fuck it is headed.  New things are learned about the climate fast enough that it still flip flops all the time.

And trying to change how the world works prior to having one global government is just raging against the machine.

If we all did at once magically start reducing the CO2 emmisions, planting trees everywhere, stop deforestation... how far do you go?  How much CO2 do you remove?  How many trees do you plant?  How much plankton do you seed?  Unless we actually KNOW these answers any attempt to 'fix' the problem (that may not even BE a problem) could be causing more harm than the initial CO2 influx.

Maybe one day we will know enough to understand what levels of CO2 we need globally.  How much ozone we need, how to take into effect the wind currents, the water currents, the level of the polar icecaps, etc...  But we don't right now.

We are aware that we could be fucking up right now.  Slow steps are being taken to help out.  New fuels are being researched, government is setting emmisions standards for vehicles, global climate is being researched so we can learn.  We are a long way from clamping our hands over our ears and screaming "I'm not listening".

I think we are in the right place right now for our current knowledge.  And what our current knowledge level is depends on which study you like more than the other or which scientist you like the most.

But if it worries you, you have the power within yourself to do your part.  So start peddling and planting trees.

[Ballast]

Does anyone seriously believe that the human race would be seriously endangered by the effects of global warming? Even if the mean sea levels were to rise a significant amount?

This whole brouhaha is about people fearing change.

... and for the eco-freaks that go off on a Gaia tangent about humans "destroying" the Earth; FFS, get some perspective... This rock has been here eons before humanity, and will be here eons after we're long gone. Fear not for the fate of Mother Earth, she will endure.

The timeframe for a change of this magnitude would give time for adaptation. I'm not saying adaptation would be pretty, or cheap, or even without hardship on the part of humans everywhere, but we're not talking about Armageddon by any means.

[Mesozoic]

But I am not here to solve the global warming question

No, but presumably you are here to back up your position with some sort of data.  The study indicated, broadly, that global warming is a serious problem.  You refuted that by indicating that other studies say otherwise.  Are you now saying that there are no other studies that refute the first?  Or that an eloquent counter-argument exists, but its not your job to state it?

[SirBruce]

But I am not here to solve the global warming question

No, but presumably you are here to back up your position with some sort of data.  The study indicated, broadly, that global warming is a serious problem.  You refuted that by indicating that other studies say otherwise.  Are you now saying that there are no other studies that refute the first?  Or that an eloquent counter-argument exists, but its not your job to state it?

The eloquent counter-argument has already been stated.  As for "studies" to back up the notion that global warming is not as serious a problem as your study says it is, well, you already stipulated to their existance.  So I see no need to dig up some URL just to satisfy someone's need to say, "Oh, THAT study, I don't believe that." and we're right back where we were before, because you're picking and choosing which studies to believe to support your preconceived notions.

Bruce

[Tebonas]

At the end of the day, the best solution would be for all of you to put your money where your mouth is. Buy a hybrid. Don't buy a car that gets less than 30MPG city. Oh. You can't afford it? Then why are you driving hypocrite?

Hey cool, I did that. Bike in the city, train if going abroad. Getting my electricity from a water plant. Can I get a cookie now?

Just for your information, you can regulate such things with prices. Taxes on fossil fuel, higher car taxes for those cars, a working public transportation system, et cetera. I know you Americans are against that, but it is possible. The point is you don't want to, not that you can't do it! At least be honest to yourself and don't delude yourself you are powerless to do differently.

[Mesozoic]

The eloquent counter-argument has already been stated.  As for "studies" to back up the notion that global warming is not as serious a problem as your study says it is, well, you already stipulated to their existance.  So I see no need to dig up some URL just to satisfy someone's need to say, "Oh, THAT study, I don't believe that." and we're right back where we were before, because you're picking and choosing which studies to believe to support your preconceived notions.

Bruce

So the specific study that we're talking about is totally refuted by the general existence of other studies.  Neat trick.  Now theres no way to attack the methodology or constraints of the "other studies."  No way to look and see who is financing these other studies.

Back it up.

[Daeven]

Taxes on fossil fuel, higher car taxes for those cars, a working public transportation system, et cetera. I know you Americans are against that, but it is possible. The point is you don't want to, not that you can't do it!

Taxes on fossil fuels? Check.
City public transportation systems utilizing both bus and light rail funded through both taxation and public Bonds? Check.


Distance to connect Denver Metro to the nearest Major Metro area (Let's say KC): 600 miles, as compared to Paris to Berlin: 680 miles. Point? Don’t know. Perhaps it is that the US is significantly larger in terms of area than many people seem to realize, and therefore it might cost a bit more than you expect to connect everything in a nice Europass manner?

I’m not against public transport in the least. However, I am against increasing my Federal tax level to fund a high-speed rail line between Pittsburgh and Buffalo, which I will never use. Denver metro will have light rail stretching from Cheyenne, Wyoming to Colorado Springs along the North south axis and between DIA and Vail along its east west axis within 20 years. Looks as though we are creating a solid public transportation infrastructure without beggaring the bank quite nicely all on our lonesome, thank you for your interest though. So I’m not quite certain where you are getting your “don’t want to’” strawman, but hey – whatever works for you.

Funny thing is, public transportation STILL needs some sort of power to operate. So here we are back to reducing CO2 emissions once again.

At least be honest to yourself and don't delude yourself you are powerless to do differently.

A valid point. If we *REALLY* wanted to invest in a massive public transportation infrastructure connecting every major point in the US with each other we could do it. Hell, we’ve been to the moon a couple of times. Of course, coming across as a pedantic blowhard talking down to the moronically ignorant and self-deluded 'Merikans significantly enhances your point as well.

...

[SirBruce]

So the specific study that we're talking about is totally refuted by the general existence of other studies.  Neat trick.

Except I never said TOTALLY refuted.  In fact, the thrust of my argument is otherwise.

Now theres no way to attack the methodology or constraints of the "other studies."  No way to look and see who is financing these other studies.

Back it up.

Every study has been flawed in methodoly or constraints... that's part of my whole argument here.  Some say one thing and some say another.  The system is too complex for any of them to fully account for.  And as I specifically pointed out before, many of the studies don't really measure the positive aspects of global warming; only the negatives.

Bruce

[Tebonas]

Ah, if you commute from one Major city to the other regulary, you sure have a point. I was under the impression the majority of people go abroad on holidays and not on a daily basis.

But thats not the point anyway. Even on a daily basis, mass transportation systems use less fuel per person transported than cars. Even buses or airplanes. As I said you can't force people to do it (here in Europe you can't either, driving by car is still way cheaper than using trains. Don't think otherwise). You just can make it more expensive to sweeten the deal for alternatives.

I take my "don't want to" strawman from the simple fact that the USA wastes energy like there is no tomorrow, as a trend. Not that Europeans are much better, but ranting about European problems I usually reserve to European message boards. For the record I don't think we handle this ideally as well, for whatever that is worth. Maybe I'm a slave of the media age, but everytime I see one of those energy wasting cars, I gotta puke at the inefficiency of those monsters. But then maybe they only exist in movies and the energy efficient cars are the new trend over there. Would be nice, because in a few years it would become a trend here too. And the oil price is much cheaper than over here, making every alternative unreasonably expensive in comparasation. My impression was you pay just the material price of fuel plus something for the oil company, with no strings attached. If that is not true, my apologies.

I don't think Americans to be moronically ignorant and self-deluded as a rule. I only know the worst of them are, and after some postings by Sir Bruce you can't blame me for getting into that mood.

[cerberus]

the only practical way to reverse global warming once we loose the ice caps is to put a gigantic shield in space to reduce the amount of sunlight the earth gets. And that, is really fucking expensive.

I am not all that concerned with the global warming, I am concerned with its effect on the ice caps. Do you have idea idea how many billion will be forced to move if the oceans rose 80 meters?

Are we doing enough to cause the ice caps to melt. No. However we are doing enough to cause the world to heat up, which *WILL* trigger a runaway greenhouse effect. How do I know this? Because its happened before. Several times the earth has been a giant ball of ice, and once emissions from volcanos reach a certain limit, you suddenly get this huge runaway effect.

Think of all the frozen tundland. THAT will thaw, and release TONS of greenhouse gasses. Think of all of the methanehydrate that will be released when the ocean temperatures increase.

All we need to do is trigger the chain reaction and there will be no way to stop it. The way to prevent that is nuclear power, along with hydro and wind power. We need to STOP burning coal, and begin phasing out petrochemical cars in favor of hydrogen ones. We also need to stop the deforistation occuring in south america.

In my opinion those in power are too greedy to bother, and that we will cause a runaway greenhouse effect.

[Alluvian]

Maybe I'm a slave of the media age, but everytime I see one of those energy wasting cars, I gotta puke at the inefficiency of those monsters.

Your streets, parking spaces, etc... are also much smaller making a large vehicle a fucking pain in the ass (at least the english cities I have seen).  To my knowledge most europeans drive tiny cars because they are simply more convenient in the european world, not because they are saving the world from mr bad co2.  I remember seeing a LOT more historical areas with tiny fucking cobblestone streets and tiny roundabouts where a larger vehicle would frankly suck.  This could be a mistake on my part from not having seen very much of the place and making an impression based on limited data.

In the US people like to drive SUVs because they are more convenient around town (storage, height for visibility, transporation of family, towing capacity for boats, etc...).  People take the path of least resistance.  I don't think that is an exclusive trend to america.

[Tebonas]

Nah, SUVs certainly seem to become a trend here as well. Streets are seldom a problem, unless you live in some really old part of a town, and most of the time those parts are pedestrian areas anyway (for tourists and shoppers).

[koboshi]

psst... bruce... use this: Scientists stirred to ridicule ice age claims... sir...

[SirBruce]

Only the most hardcore environmentalist whacko could read that into what that article said.

Bruce

[koboshi]

Only the most hardcore environmentalist whacko could read that into what that article said.

Bruce

read what, sir?

[SirBruce]

That scientists were stirred to ridicule ice age claims?

Bruce

[koboshi]

Sir.  The point was that it refutes my fifty years till doomsday article, proving your any article can be refuted by another, but shit, if you can do better... sir.

[penfold]

There's loads of SUVs here in England, often seen blocking up our tiny roads as housewives drive 1 mile through suburban streets to take their kids to school or go shopping.

As for the Gulf Stream stopping, we have complete chaos in any adverse weather conditions (a light rain, 1" of snow, mist, a mild frost etc), an arctic winter would more or less finish off british civilisation.