We're wet in about 13 years

[owl]

I think, overall, that there's a lot of hype/scare-tactics thrown at us, though.

 

On a serious note-

 

You're probably right, but it's not necessarily unwarranted.

 

If you ever see Inconvenient Truth, you'll discover that earth's temperatures have been rising at an unprecedented rate. And warming aside, we know exactly what greenhouse gases are, and we know exactly what they do. We (the world) also have an unprecedented number of greenhouse gas-emitting factories and vehicles. Draw your own conclusions. Many things could be done (like better mileage, better management of Sulfur, Carbon, and Nitrogen dioxides) to minimize this effect before Ann Coulter's "inevitable" communist-socialist-depression sets in.

 

The truth is, learned scientists don't much dispute climate change in the way that they do with other scientific findings. It's a problem. The other thing is that yes, I think that the earth can heal itself. But on the other hand, the earth can't bring back extinct species which are just as crucial to ecosystems as climate itself.

 

One problem is that Environmental Science just isn't taught in the way we teach Bio and Chem, even though it is no less of a science. The other thing is that this phenomenon should never have been called "Global Warming" in the first place. Long before the issue was buzz of the town, scientists were investigating "Global Climate Change." It's true that the poles will likely warm, but this will not affect all parts of the world in the same way. Some places will see a lot more rain. Other areas will see increasingly drier climates. And in other places, a few feet of water could be a bit of a problem.

 

I'm wondering if we should stop worrying about the 9/11 monument- or maybe put it on stilts.

[Lammycat]

re: Moe Syzlak-

I didn't say humans aren't contributing. I just believe that humans have always contributed and that the world has always adapted to the changes, and will continue to do so. I also did not say humans should NOT help to protect the environment.

 

I still believe there is plenty of inconclusive "fact" to base a portion of debate on hype.

[cryptique]

The thing with this stuff is that the experts don't even agree on a lot of the theories/predictions. You can pretty much find "facts" from experts to support one side or the other concerning the extent of/relevance of global warming/greenhouse effect/catchphrase du jour.

 

I'm not saying there isn't truth to some of it or that there shouldn't be concern for environmental issues but I'm cautious as to the soruces that report these findings and their (potential) agendas. There's been so much debate on these issues and there always seems to be a lot of leeway on either side as to what is fact and what is theory.

 

I side with the Gaia effect/theory on a lot of these issues that are open to debate. In a nutshell, the planet is a self-regulating gigantic ecosystem that adapts to circumstances in order to survive. It self-repairs. Of course, doing one's part to help along the way is only right.

 

I think, overall, that there's a lot of hype/scare-tactics thrown at us, though.

There is as about as close to a scientific consensus on global warming as there can possibly be. But there are those with a political agenda (read: Big Business and the politicians who do their bidding) who go to great lengths to muddy the waters by pretending that there is a sizable minority of "respected" scientists who disagree. There is not. That is a deliberate lie forwarded and perpetuated by those interests.

[quarter23cd]

The thing with this stuff is that the experts don't even agree on a lot of the theories/predictions. You can pretty much find "facts" from experts to support one side or the other concerning the extent of/relevance of global warming/greenhouse effect/catchphrase du jour.

 

I'm not saying there isn't truth to some of it or that there shouldn't be concern for environmental issues but I'm cautious as to the soruces that report these findings and their (potential) agendas. There's been so much debate on these issues and there always seems to be a lot of leeway on either side as to what is fact and what is theory.

 

I side with the Gaia effect/theory on a lot of these issues that are open to debate. In a nutshell, the planet is a self-regulating gigantic ecosystem that adapts to circumstances in order to survive. It self-repairs. Of course, doing one's part to help along the way is only right.

 

I think, overall, that there's a lot of hype/scare-tactics thrown at us, though.

There might be some dissent of what specifically the consequences are going to be and when we will see them, but in the scientific community (aka - people who don't have a financial stake in disproving the existence of global warming) there's really not so much credible dissent that this is really happening and that humans are contributing to it. Not saying there aren't some scare tactics in the way it is presented to the public--the media loves to latch onto a good scary hypothetical situation and then sell it as an inevitable forecast of doom. Scary shit sells.

 

As for the planet's ability to self-regulate, there is a lot of truth to that. Life on the planet will no doubt go on through any number of changes, but if you're a member of a species that enjoys a pretty cushy spot on the food chain right now, it might be in your best interest not to shake up the ecological order of things too much.

 

[edit: wow, looks like several people made this same point more quickly than i did]

[ikol]

Since when was science a democracy? How many currently-accepted theories were laughed at by the majority of scientists when they were proposed? It's pretty clear that the earth is warming, but it's not at all settled whether we are causing it or to what extent it will continue. Excuse me if I'm a little skeptical of computer models which try to predict the climate a hundred years from now when they don't know all the variables or even how each variable affects the climate. There are plenty of good reasons to get off fossil fuels. Scaring people into thinking that the apocalypse is coming if we don't switch over immediately isn't one of them.

[Atticus]

My ex-girlfriend is a PhD studying climate change for NCAR. Believe me, the science is there. The naysayers exploit the differences in the language of science from the language of the media/politicians/general public to create doubt. There is just about as much dissent that climate change is happening as there is that gravity isn't real, but it is still expressed -- in the language of science -- as a theory. Even if you believe humans aren't contributing (although there is pretty good consensus there too), why would NOT do something about it. It's like arguing about who left the toilet seat up in your cabin on the Titanic as it is sinking.

 

wait a second--you believe in gravity?

 

that explains a lot...

[owl]

How many currently-accepted theories were laughed at by the majority of scientists when they were proposed?

 

How many times in history have human civilizations burned their bridges only before realizing that they've irreparably fucked their livelihoods?

 

I can't, for the life of me, figure out why all these scientists would want to propagate a fake theory. I can see why industry-types would want to taint the public understanding, though.

 

Either way, scientists deserve the public's ear more than lazy and irresponsible industry-types who just want to maintain their system of making the most money in the short-term and fucking the little guy in the future.

 

Cest la vie, I guess.

 

It certainly doesn't help that the climate change skeptics are the same people who manipulate scientific reports.

[ikol]

How many times in history have human civilizations burned their bridges only before realizing that they've irreparably fucked their livelihoods?

 

I can't, for the life of me, figure out why all these scientists would want to propagate a fake theory. I can see why industry-types would want to taint the public understanding, though.

 

Either way, scientists deserve the public's ear more than lazy and irresponsible industry-types who just want to maintain their system of making the most money in the short-term and fucking the little guy in the future.

 

Cest la vie, I guess.

 

It certainly doesn't help that the climate change skeptics are the same people who manipulate scientific reports.

 

I'm not saying that these scientists don't believe their own theories, just that they might be wrong about them. Climate science is complex, and unlike many other fields, you can't really test your theories. And it's not the scientists that are propagating the doomsday alarmism. It's the media and people like Al Gore. I'm pretty sure they have just as much motivation to propagate fake theories as oil companies. And perhaps Julie MacDonald is just one person and not in fact every or even most climate change skeptics.

[Lammycat]

The "scientific community" is vast. They're scientists. Of course there are opposing views. It's not just about political slants and biases. Nothing about theoretical guesses as to the future effects are conclusive. Present research cannot often be deemed conclusive, as well.

[MattZ]

This topic is tough. When you consider that we are on a planet that is millions of years old, its hard to figure out how much weight to give to the fact that the earth has been warming for the last 100 years.

 

That being said, I think we owe it to ourselves and future generations not to take a chance and to do what we can (if anything) to slow, if not reverse, the trend. The consequences are too dire to do otherwise. But I suppose if your business was going to be shut down or severely curtailed because of 100 years worth of evidence that may or may not be relevant in the context of a planet that is millions of years old, then I suspect you'd have a right to be upset. To which I guess I'd say, well, too bad. Sorry.

[bjorn_skurj]

I imagine future generations are not going to look upon us too kindly. There's probably not a whole hell of a lot we can do to stop global warming in its tracks, but the longer we f around and find excuses not to cut carbon emissions, the longer and more severe this problem will be.

[owl]

And perhaps Julie MacDonald is just one person and not in fact every or even most climate change skeptics.

 

And perhaps I was just noting the most recent of many unqualified Bush/Republican appointees who have lent their unrelated expertise to the field of science.

[Guest tandylacker]

Advice for this whole world ending crap. I hear you can place a penny on a bee sting and it will help you out greatly.

 

I think that if this whole global warming thing is true, ozone disappearing, artic melting away--then we are probably screwed no matter what we do. I know they can see the arctic melting right now, but the earth has been around for millions of years. It doesn't work in 20 year spans or even 200 year spans. It may melt in between 1900 and 2100, but may be frozen again a couple hundred years later.

 

Anyhow, it would be great if we could pollute less, etc., but lets be realistic, the air is much cleaner now than 100 years ago. And it will definitely be cleaner 100 years from now than it is now. The largest hole in the ozone is above Africa even though the US clearly is polluting the most. And don't say our pollution travels over and up. We can be more proactive, but not much more than we already are.

 

So in other words, I think the earth is huge and if it wants to kill us all, it will.

 

 

P.S.- Clint Eastwood avatar guy, your post sound so much tougher with your avatar. Its weird.

[Guest tandylacker]

Also, that link to the Mars melting thing. Now there is a scientist that uses some simple, lets not freak out, logic.

[bjorn_skurj]

Yeah, it could be that the supervolcano under Yellowstone could blow and then the Earth would cool off quite a bit.

[ikol]

And perhaps I was just noting the most recent of many unqualified Bush/Republican appointees who have lent their unrelated expertise to the field of science.

 

My bad. I erroneously assumed that because you put the link in the sentence, "It certainly doesn't help that the climate change skeptics are the same people who manipulate scientific reports," that you were saying that climate change skeptics are the same people who manipulate scientific reports. I didn't realize that it was just general Republican bashing.

[Edie]

ikol, you should be a lawyer and not a doctor.

[ikol]

Is that a compliment?

[Edie]

Is that a compliment?

 

I just think that you will end up arguing with your patients too much

 

I believe that lawyering suits your.... um.... personality better.

 

Edie

[ikol]

I'm not as outspoken in person as I am on the internets. Plus I'd make a horrible public speaker.

[oceanman]

You know the Ice Industry is like a billion dollar indrustry.People make a living off of selling rocks,dirt,even air.

[Edie]

I'm not as outspoken in person as I am on the internets. Plus I'd make a horrible public speaker.

 

That can be learned. Quick wit can't.

[cryptique]

I imagine future generations are not going to look upon us too kindly.

...assuming there will even be any future generations.

[ikol]

...assuming there will even be any future generations.

 

Those bastards don't deserve to exist if they're going to badmouth us.

[bjorn_skurj]

There are like, what, 6 billion people now on Earth? I think it would be hard to kill all of us, unless the Death Star rolled up on us and performed an Alderaan.

 

(Holy fuck. We're closing in on 7 billion.)