[Climate Change] Lake Erie up to 60% Covered in Ice

"Don't forget about the hemorriods. Global warming causes hemorriods. It's a fact"

rep from one of our resident geniuses

 

That's certainly how people on the left would like to frame the discussion, but it's pretty far from reality.

If you looked at it objectively (which judging by your last comment is probably impossible for you) both sides are arguing for what they think is the greater good. One side thinks that global warming is something that man can control, one side doesn't. There is no scientific consensus about that one way or the other and anyone who says otherwise is lying to support a narrative. The only consensus is that there has been warming not about what the greatest cause of it is and not about what or if it can be prevented.

One side believes that it is primarily man made warming and that humans have the ability to stop it, the other does not believe that. It only makes sense, if you don't believe that humans have the capacity to stop or reverse it, to not force people into hardship over what would amount to a futile effort to control the planet's climate. If you buy into the idea of man made global warming that is preventable and reversible, you might feel that we have a responsibility to prevent and reverse it.

At the core, both sides want the same things, they just disagree about what "the good" is and how it is attained.

 

even if people on this planet only contribute a small amount in man made warming, also considering oil spills and everything else. how is it "good" to not try and curb that?

 

Actually, the way you are framing this is not accurate, and reflects your own bias. Here is my take on the disagreement... see if it is more accurate:

Folks on the "left" believe that mankind contributes to "global warming (or change)" and that mankind should take steps to lessen that contribution. They are not attempting to "control" the climate, they are not attempting to "control global warming".

Folks on the right appear to believe mankind does not contribute, or if they do, not significantly, and if they do contribute significantly, not significantly enough to warrant whatever cost would be involved or change in behavior needed to lessen that contribution.

 

Excellent point. As an aside, this thread inspired me to watch the first part of The Day After Tomorrow again. Great special effects! Not that the flick is helpful in this thread, of course.

 

I see you basically ignored what Txtony posted to just repeat the same talking point. As he noted though there is some correlation in regard to atmospheric CO2 and warming trends. Note this is based on 100,000's years of data from things like ice core sampling, tree ring data, geology and etc..

 

Sure it would be "good" to try and curb that, and I think looking to find replacement fuels is important, but it comes down to urgency. Quick change would be expensive and would cause a lot of human suffering that would be entirely unnecessary unless climate change is reversible.

I think that a slower change would be better because it would cause the least amount of economic turmoil. I personally don't think we're "saving the planet" so much as we are just finding smarter fuels and energies so I think we can ease into them.

I think the argument boils down to whether or not climate change is preventable and reversible and that's what I meant by saying one side seeks to "control the climate". One side seems to think that humans can slow or prevent climate change by emitting less CO2, one side disagrees.

 

Our negative impact on the environment manifests in numerous ways. Altering the avg temperature may or may not be one of these externalities but regardless, it is such a small piece of this giant web of causality; it isn't the point.

Our problem is our inability to understand that human activity inevitably interacts with systems that are responsive to such activity. The crux of this problem is a mutated and malformed relationship between civilization and the rock that supports it.

 

Once again people are looking at this issue through political lens and not understanding the nature of science and how that should be applied to policy.

Science doesn't make policy decisions. The science itself only attempts to explain observable phenomena and provide a range of possibilities about future phenomena. In a case like this yes there are no certainties but a range of probabilities and the overwhelming scientific consensus is that the Earth is warming and that human activities are contributing to that. Now how much that is and what timetable that isn't so clear but this would be akin to saying that the scientific consensus is that smoking causes lung cancer. Any individual who smokes a pack a day for 40 years there is a chance they won't get lung cancer and almost certainly the severity of and when they get it might not be the same as someone else who smokes a pack a day but there is a high probability that a person smoking a pack a day for 40 years will get lung cancer.

This is where we get to policy. Science says nothing about whether someone should smoke or not. That is a personal policy decision each person has to make. An informed decision would be to consider the science and decide that while there is some counter arguments most scientific arguments say smoking can cause lung cancer so it's a good idea not to smoke. In the same way if we look at the science behind climate most scientists are saying that human activities are affecting the climate so the informed policy would be to consider that.

Now there certainly is the possibility that human activities have nothing to do with climate change but consider that there are many other benefits to addressing the activities that are contributing to climate change such as increasing energy efficiency, developing renewable energy sources that don't emit other pollutants like SO2, and develop new technologies. All of those alone would make it worth it even without considering greenhouse gases.

From the policy standpoint considering all of the potential gains there are longterm benefits to addressing climate change even if the science has to be wrong. Just the same as not smoking has other benefits besides avoiding lung cancer.

 

What you stated is a gross misrepresentation and/or non-understanding of what Science said.

Science said CO2 is the primary driver. General consensus.

Science said whatever CO2 is already released, will remain there for a long time. The warming due to that is baked in. There is no reversal of that by human (at least by today knowledge).

Science said continue to release CO2 and you will increase warming above what is already baked in. General consensus.

So if you want to not increase warming above what is already baked in, you have a chance to by reducing CO2 released by human activity.

Also, don't confuse science with policy decisions ("the greater good"). Science give you data and fact. Policy decisions should be based on data and fact (hopefully).

 

Where in what I wrote did the words "preventable" or "reversible" appear? And the same question in what TxTony wrote above?

 

If the change isn't preventable or reversible, then there's no reason to act....

Also, some people try to speak for "science" that really shouldn't. "Science" doesn't say one way or the other what is specifically causing climate chance as the cause and driver of that change is contested. The only consensus is that there is change. There are a broad spectrum of opinions and studies as to what is driving climate change now and what has always driven climate change in the past. There is some consensus that human activity is adding to it, but how much they are adding to it is again something that is contested.

 

/thread

 

"Extremely likely" is uncertain in your book. I mean - if someone told you that you're extremely likely to get hit by a car if you blindfold yourself and walk across a freeway during the mid-afternoon, I guess that means you should assume they are uncertain and you should ignore it.

There is no plan to get CO2 levels back to 1900 levels. Why do you keep talking about things like that? That's not the point of the discussion. Unlike you, I am don't have an agenda. I am not talking about WHAT we should do, I am just talking about the REALITY of what is happening.

Manmade CO2 is warming the earth. At this point the science is so strong that 98% agree this is what is infact happening. You are saying their opinions are debunk so basically you don't buy into science. Ok, good for you.

 

Your death is not preventable or reversible so there is no reason for you to go to the doctor.

mitigate? prolong? slowly adapt? extend while waiting for scientific breakthrough?

 

No I'm saying it is a pointless discussion unless solutions are provided to fix the problem. Why try so hard to convince everyone that man is at fault for global warming if you don't have a solution to fix it? Are you just trying to make people feel guilty for being part of the human race?

The reality is the Earth is warming. Yes

I'm asking what you propose to do about it?

 

What is the plan to mitigate, prolong, slowly adapt, or extend?

 

Record warm temp in Austin today -- checkmate climate change apologists.

 

What? Seriously, you actually wrote that?

So let me get this straight... if we can prevent or reverse the impact our actions have on climate change we shouldn't try to reduce the impact?

Seriously?

 

Just relax and enjoy it.


Signed,

Clayton Williams