How do you know there will be massive displacements of people? Maybe there will be fewer displacements of people due to the warmer weather. That is the NASA chief's point. Yes, there is global warming going on. But no, we don't know if it is a pressing issue we have to address with new rules and laws that could hurt the economy.
Wow, I have to say, I'm very impressed with your posts and thinking. Not many people have the detachment from self to the degree to recognize the malleable nature of the truth and absolutes. Good to see that there are other open minded thinkers here.
People act like we can stop global warming and that in fact we know global warming is a really horrible thing. This guy is just taking a very scientific approach which is that not anything has been confirmed regarding the negative impact of global warming. For instance, it is theorized that global warming will flood coastal cities. Is this true or not? No one knows for sure because climate is more complex then just artic ice and glacial melt - snow fall may increase. Also, no one knows what the impact of increased water vapor will be. It might actually cool the planet, or heat it up more. It may result in deserts becoming more wet. One thing is for certain - global warming will benefit some, and hurt others. One other thing is for certain. Making the cuts in emissions to a level that might actually influence the warming trend to change the outcome will result in a lot of human suffering in and of itself. Either road that is chosed will result in negative consequences. Either way. And no one knows if cutting emissions will do enough. China is expected to spew out more Carbon Dioxide out in the next 25 years then the top 26 CO2 produces in the world COMBINED - including the United States. Think about that. Personally, I think we start thinking about life in a warmer world and how to live with it as opposed to thinking we can stop what is now clearly inevitable. It might not turn out so bad anyway. The real problem might just be that there's too many people to support an industrialized planet for everyone. Now - it is indeed arrogant to tell China they can't have what we have becuase it will flood the world. You can't stop progress.
Oh, brother. Mister "Open Minded," I'm glad you live in New York (I'm assuming you do), because you will be right there, Johnny on the Spot, ready to build those dikes to keep the city dry. Better start working out. You just may live long enough to need those muscles. D&D. Replicant Voter, and Getting Warmer.
The solar issue has been addressed before on previous threads and again the consensus is that the sun doesn't play that big of a factor. The rate of observed warming seems faster than previous solar cycles. I have to admit I don't have polling on the issue off hand and don't have time to look it up but it is consensus. In fact I would guess more than 90% of climate scientist agree on this. Those scientists who don't support human influenced global warming get an inordinate amount of attention but they are a small minority.
You can't say that some places will improve and someplaces get worse without expecting the people in the places that get worse won't move. If the Earth on the whole warms up that will make areas that are already drought prone more drought prone and places that are susceptable to tropical storms more susceptable. Its not like only Siberia and the Yukon will warm up while the Carribean basin and US Southwest stays the same.
Considering that most of Earth's population is within the tropical and near tropical zone, along with places like India and China that are prone to both drought and floods like Global Warming is going to hurt a lot of people. On top There isn't a big population living in the Yukon or Siberia that might benefit from a warmer world at the moment. The dislocation of those peoples and their economies is going to cause a huge problem. Also as shown with all of the handwringing in Western Europe and the US over immigration its not like those Northern Climate countries will open their borders and welcome all of the people fleeing from the areas negatively affected by Global Warming. As for cutting emmissions hurting economies, yes they will but massive dislocation along with all of the other potential problems associate with a warmer world will hurt too. Anyway cutting emmissions and moving away from fossil fuels has long run economic benefits. How is clinging to the status quo progress?
You don't think the status quo has progressed in the last 1000 years? The last 100 years? The last 10 years?
That's fine if we're dealing with something that has no, or little, potential affects on the not too distant future like determing whether the Universe will expand infinitely, but with global warming we are talking about something that could have a very huge affect just a few decades down the road. As I've said before we are gambling with our future so why shouldn't caution be warranted? For that matter even you would agree that it is a minority viewpoint that Global Warming isn't happening or at least not caused by man. Just because it is the minority viewpoint doesn't mean that it has anymore validity and in a matter of science it is the minority viewpoint that is the one that has the greater burden of proof. So just because you have 8 scientist saying one thing and 2 saying another there is no reason that the 2 are more correct than the 8. I will admit that the 90% number is off the top of my hed but I will stand by it that 90% of climate scientists support the consensus view. This is from a quick search on Wikipedia " Existence of a scientific consensus Main article: Scientific opinion on climate change Outside the scientific community there are questions regarding the proportion of scientists who agree or disagree on the existence of human-caused warming. Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media often claim virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community. Opponents either maintain that most scientists consider global warming "unproved," dismiss it altogether, or decry the dangers of consensus science.[18] Still, others maintain that opponents have been stifled or driven underground. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists is the only scientific society that rejects the predominant opinion.[19][20] A 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes in the journal Science reported a survey of abstracts of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate change in the ISI database.[21]. Oreskes said: Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science. Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case. The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Oreskes stated that of the 928 abstracts analyzed, "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy There are challenges to this but from the piece though it sounds like many of these challenges are being issued by people who aren't climate scientists.
Sure technology has gotten better and I hope it still does but saying we're not going to make any serious attempts to reduce emmissions is accepting the current status quo. I personally believe that we can find technological solutions to stop global warming but that requires a commitment to addressing the problem rather than shrugging it off.
China and India and other developing nations are the ones at the greatest risk from Global Warming and they are the ones who are spewing more and more carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases. Coastlines may retreat and people will need to move further inland, but that's been happening for 1000's of years to some degree. What is set in motion will be very difficult to stop. We will move to other forms of energy naturally. Nuclear power will be one choice, and alternative energies and nuclear will become more viable as carbon fuels become more expensive. But no one is going to stop China and India from a growing emissions base that will make what everyone else does and all the other cuts moot. Therefore we can expect global warming to continue and we'll just have to adjust to the consequences. Why kill jobs here in the U.S. to accomplish nothing? Since people don't see nuclear energy as a means to cut co2 admissions, then the only way to do it is reduce the economy. Why should we do it when you know the developing world is not going to do it and why shoudl they not have thier chance to develop into the first world? The whole Kyoto thing is moot. We're heading for a warmer planet. Global Warming has been debated for 25 years and nothing's happened, and it will be debated another 25 years before with nothing happening. By then, it will be too late anyway even if we could have done something. enjoy the warm weather, that's what I say.
who are you arguing with?? when did i say we shouldn't be cautious??? i just said i have no idea who is right here. i have no idea how to know who is right. these guys don't know with any certainty who is right and they deal with this stuff for a living. they're educated and trained in this science. i'm just a lawyer. i'm nowhere near an expert on this matter. what little i know about it is through the media.
It won't let me copy and paste, but here is more of his reaction - where he basically says the comments are so unbelievable he thought Griffin was misquoted: http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3229696&page=1 It should also be noted that in early 2006 Griffin changed the NASA Mission Statment by deleting “to understand and protect our home planet” so he definitely wants to move away from that.
more troubling was that he wanted the mission statement to read "to confuse and destroy our home planet." very strange.
I was watching "In Living Color" last night and they were doing a parody of "A Different World". The name of the parody was "A different Message", making fun of how the show always tried to have some social message behind it. Anyway I guess this was from 1992 and one the messages was the ozone layer. what ever happened to that issue. has the ozone layer message evolved into global warming or are they two separate issues. just curious.
haven't we seen signs that the ozone level is repairing itself? i think a lot of that is credited to reducing certain emissions...but i can't remember specifically. dwayne wayne was a great character, though.
