Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Famine]

I have a large sheet of plastic. It is intact. In some places it is thinner than others, but unless I get some sophisticated equipment out, I won't notice. This is the Earth's Ozone layer.

I have another large sheet of plastic. It is mostly intact, but for a 2" hole in the middle. This is NOT the Earth's Ozone layer.


The data is RIGHT THERE on the graph on the links you posted.

 

[Zardoz]

I have a large sheet of plastic. It is intact. In some places it is thinner than others, but unless I get some sophisticated equipment out, I won't notice. This is the Earth's Ozone layer.

I have another large sheet of plastic. It is mostly intact, but for a 2" hole in the middle. This is NOT the Earth's Ozone layer.


The data is RIGHT THERE on the graph on the links you posted.

Okay. A depleted area concentrated over Antarctica is not a "hole". Only a total absence of ozone should be called a "hole". Whatever.

So because there is still some ozone there, and the ozone level worldwide is still at about 95% of what it used to be, we can go back to spraying CFCs into the air?

 

[Famine]

Now now... What part of me saying that there's never been an ozone hole would lead you to believe I think we should spray CFCs into the air?

That's argumentum ad hominem.


The point was until 5 minutes ago you knew that there was a hole in the Ozone layer of Antarctica. This despite the fact that the absence of Ozone would boil the seas and scorch the land black.

It's science presented to laypeople. "Hole in the Ozone layer" is a lot easier to understand, despite being wrong, than "partial thinning of the Ozone layer". The effect is the same - the Earth beneath isn't as well protected - but the concepts are wildly different.

On the same basis, you know that cars make the Earth hot. Despite the fact that, for this to be true, the 0.25% of global CO2 emissions from cars would have to play much more of a part in the gradual increase in average global temperatures than the 90% of global CO2 emissions from plants and decay of organic matter. You believe in "Global Warming" despite the fact that it doesn't exist - as the "Hole in the Ozone layer" doesn't exist.

You probably also believe in Centrifugal Force.


The fact that ZAGGIN pointed out is salient. We knew what was causing the Ozone problem and, in less than 5 years from when the problem was discovered, we'd got it licked. They've been teaching Global Warming in schools since I was there - a decade ago. If we knew what was causing the Earth's temperature to increase gradually, we'd also have that licked. But we don't know. For all we know it could be entirely natural - certainly we're overdue an ice age and Antarctic core samples (which go back further than 1840) indicate that there's an average global temperature increase immediately before an ice age...

 

[Kylehnat]

If we knew what was causing the Earth's temperature to increase gradually, we'd also have that licked. But we don't know. For all we know it could be entirely natural - certainly we're overdue an ice age and Antarctic core samples (which go back further than 1840) indicate that there's an average global temperature increase immediately before an ice age...

It's true. Throughout the history of the Earth, the geological cycle between ice-ages includes sharp rises in CO2 emissions. Typically the peak of this level is well above the 360ppm we currently have. However, all of those natural spikes are, well, natural. Our current level of CO2 is GREATLY influenced by humans. I think the problem is that we have absolutely no way of knowing how our influence on the environment is going to affect the earth several hundred years down the road. After all, we've only been coughing out significant amounts of greenhouse gases for 200 years, a very short timeframe when compared to natural geological cycles, the shortest of which are on the order of 10,000 years. In addition, CO2 is one of the most innocuous gases we create. NOx and UHC emmissions are far more problematic in terms of their ability to destroy the atmosphere, and there is NO long time record of these substances, since they ARE unnatural. Anyone who says that they know for sure what is going to happen because of our actions is lying. We just don't know, and that is the real problem.

On the other hand, at our current rate of consumption, we will wear the oil supply down to a puddle. When that happens, there won't be as much gasoline to burn to make CO2, CO, NOx......It's kind of a self-defeating cycle. So again, who knows? It would be interesting to look into a crystal ball and see the world in 100 years, because good or bad, a lot is going to happen between now and then. Think about how different 1905 was compared to today. It's hard to fathom how that 100 years of development will manifest itself once again.

 

[Zardoz]

...You believe in "Global Warming" despite the fact that it doesn't exist...

So this is just more deceptive data, and its all due to natural weather cycles? :

NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies


This has nothing to do with us, and we can particularly ignore the steep rise since 1970?

And this glacial melting (global average glacier thickness is 8 meters less than it was in 1960) is coincidental, as well? :

http://nsidc.org/data/glims/glaciermelt/index.html

 

[Danoff]

...

 

[Danoff]

I suppose you want to ignore these then

 

[Famine]

So this is just more deceptive data, and its all due to natural weather cycles?

This has nothing to do with us, and we can particularly ignore the steep rise since 1970?

And this glacial melting (global average glacier thickness is 8 meters less than it was in 1960) is coincidental, as well? :

Here's a couple of issues for you.

• You don't seem to understand what "Global Warming" is.
• You don't seem to understand how "Global Warming" is separate from "Global Climate Change", or how both are separate from the change in average global temperatures.
• You don't seem to want to understand that the change in average global temperatures does not correlate with human carbon dioxide emissions, but it does seem to correspond with global forest cover (and the numbers of pirates).
• You don't appear to be able to accept any other explanation than "SUVs do it", despite the facts - never contradicted by ecological organisations or any source you have posted yet - that internal combustion engines account for ~0.25% of global carbon dioxide emissions and man accounts for ~8% of global carbon dioxide emissions. And man's share is STILL falling.
• You don't appear to notice that no source you've posted has a graph of average global temperature which starts before 1840. Even if you're a Young-Earth-believer, that's a rather short time (165 years out of 6,000, or 4.5 billion) to draw any conclusion at all.
• You have a belief. This makes your scientific judgement flawed.

If you analyse the data yourself you would see that not only is mankind unlikely to be (solely or even partly) responsible for the change in average global temperature - thus rendering "Global warming" a myth - but that is would appear to be a long term natural trend. The decay of the Earth's orbit, combined with the Sun's aging (and consequent increase in temperature and flaring) is also a factor, though how big of one - almost none, insignificant or slight - is a matter of some debate.

That echo was perfectly natural too.

Mind you, if I were danoff I'd point out that, since we evolved from lifeforms on Earth and all of our resources originate from materials on Earth, anything we do is, by definition, natural.

But I'm not.

So I won't.

 

[Zardoz]

I suppose you want to ignore these then

Of course not. They're fascinating.

Where are they from? Who did them?

 

[Danoff]

Of course not. They're fascinating.

Where are they from? Who did them?

Compiled by R.S. Bradley and J.A. Eddy based on J.T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990 and published in EarthQuest, vo. 1, 1991. Courtesy of Thomas Crowley

Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations
Hubertus Fischer, Martin Wahlen, Jesse Smith, Derek Mastroianni, and Bruce Deck
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Published: by the American Association for the Advancement of Science
Science, 283, 1712-1714

Holocene Carbon-cycle Dynamics
Based on CO2 Trapped in Ice at Taylor Dome, Antarctica
A. Indermühle*, T. F. Stocker*, F. Joos*, H. Fischer², H. J. Smith², M. Wahlen², B. Deck², D. Mastroianni², J. Tschumi*, T. Blunier*, R. Meyer* & B. Stauffer
Published: 1999, Macmillan Magazines Ltd
Nature, Vol. 398, 11 March 1999

The Carbon Dioxide Thermometer and the Cause of Global Warming; Nigel Calder,-- Presented at a SPRU (Science and Technology Policy Research) seminar, University of Sussex, Brighton, England, October 6, 1998


He's got more references

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

 

[Zardoz]

He's got more references

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Just gave it a quick glance. Looks very interesting, and quite well done. I'll go through it.

EDIT: Calder's solar wind-versus-global temp chart is interesting, but what about this:

Solar dimming


Turns out that there's been a lot less sun reaching the surface, after all. So does the solar wind have more effect than sunlight? Or does it have nothing at all to do with the increase in temperature?

Calder says its all the sun, but the guys in the BBC story say it isn't the sun at all, and the effects of the greenhouse gases on global temperatures may in fact be drastically underestimated, everything is far worse than we think, and we'll see a global temperature rise of about 10 degrees C. by 2100, turning the climate of Northern Europe into something like what North Africa's is now.

Seems a bit "alarmist" to me, but there you are. Pick your scientist to believe.

Back to Square One.

 

[Zardoz]

...We knew what was causing the Ozone problem and, in less than 5 years from when the problem was discovered, we'd got it licked...

What is your definition of "licked"? This...

2005 ozone hole is one of the deepest and largest recorded. The atmospheric circulation over the Antarctic continent is emerging from its winter state...There is widespread ozone depletion over the continent, with ozone amounts over 50% down on the normal for the time of year in many places. Lowest ozone amounts are below 100 DU, with all areas of the edge region below 200 DU. The lowest ozone areas are near Halley.

Overall the area of the ozone hole is around 23 million square kilometres but is a little smaller in size than the 2003 hole, which was one of the largest on record. Ozone values at Rothera are among the lowest recorded at this time of year, and values around 110 DU were reached on September 11, 19 and 20. The tip of South America and the Falkland Islands were affected by the edges of the ozone hole between August 30 and September 2; September 10 and 12; September 16 and 18; September 25 and 27. During these periods values dropped to over 20% below the normal for the time of year, and most recently have been over 30% down, with values below 200 DU.

...is from here:

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/jds/ozone/

Oh, and please forgive those simple laymen of the British Antarctic Survey for being so ignorant as to use the term "hole". You really need to get in touch with them and straighten them out.

 

[Famine]

It's science presented to laypeople.

That's to laypeople, not by laypeople.

 

[Zardoz]

Oh, and for the record, it turns out we were all wrong about the pirates. We thought it was the decreasing number of them that was causing global warming and the melting of the Arctic ice cap. Not so:

A pirate's a pirate, whether he uses a cutlass or an AK-47

Turns out there may be more of them than ever now, so its their increasing numbers that are doing all this.

Just wanted to bring everybody up to speed...

 

[Touring Mars]

On the subject of alternative energy sources, has anyone seen my bobber?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4301776.stm

 

[Danoff]

Just gave it a quick glance. Looks very interesting, and quite well done. I'll go through it.

EDIT: Calder's solar wind-versus-global temp chart is interesting, but what about this:

Solar dimming


Turns out that there's been a lot less sun reaching the surface, after all. So does the solar wind have more effect than sunlight? Or does it have nothing at all to do with the increase in temperature?

Calder says its all the sun, but the guys in the BBC story say it isn't the sun at all, and the effects of the greenhouse gases on global temperatures may in fact be drastically underestimated, everything is far worse than we think, and we'll see a global temperature rise of about 10 degrees C. by 2100, turning the climate of Northern Europe into something like what North Africa's is now.

Seems a bit "alarmist" to me, but there you are. Pick your scientist to believe.

Back to Square One.

I'm not going to pick a scientist to believe - that's the whole point. I don't know which scientist to believe so I'm not going to come to conclusions. You, on the otherhand, have picked which scientists you think are right and which ones are wrong. You have made up your mind even though many within the scientific community have not. As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out.

 

[Zardoz]

Last year, National Geographic included a large poster-size version of this remarkable map of "Earth At Night" in one of their issues:

The image is the entire planet in a "composite of satellite images from cloud-free nights gathered over a one-year period". I just discovered that its also posted on their Map Store web site as a fully-interactive Flash Player graphic. It enables you to zoom in and see details even better than the poster:

National Geographic's "Earth At Night"

Click on the "More Views" button to open the Flash Player window, then zoom in and click and drag on the image to pan around.

First, go to the lower left-hand corner to read the legend, which explains what we're looking at. The lights of civilization are fantastic to see, of course, but for the purpose of this discussion the petroleum field gas flares and the fires of slash-and-burn agriculture are also "illuminating", if you'll pardon the pun.

The amount of methane burned off as "waste gas" in the oil fields of the world (with the laudable exception of the U.S.) is staggering: Over 100 billion cubic meters of gas is burned off into the atmosphere annually! Enough to supply the energy needs of France and Germany combined!

Pan around the world, zooming in and out as you go. Zoom in tight on South America to see the continent-wide agricultural burning. Take a look at the gas flares of Nigeria on the west coast of central Africa, then pan out and see how much slash-and-burn activity goes on all across the continent and Madagascar.

Now move due north and look at the gas flares of the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf, and Iraq, then keep going north and see how much gas is being burned off around the Caspian Sea and a bit to the east of it. Go further north and take a hard look at that massive patch of red spots in Siberia.

How the Russians can let that much of such a valuable energy source just burn off into the air is very difficult to understand, but there it is. So much gas is being burned off there it makes you wonder if its possible that its creating a micro-climate in the area, possibly raising the temperature in the region enough to partially account for the melting of the Siberian permafrost (tundra) that those Russian scientists reported last August.

Keep panning around and you'll see lots more gas flaring in North Africa. There's also quite a bit of it in the North Sea between Scotland and Norway, but you have to zoom in tight to see it.

Pan across India, then look at the agri-burning across southeast Asia, the gas flares in the South China Sea and Indonesia, and the fires in northeast Australia.

This map gives us a unique look at fuel-burning "human activity" in general. (Keep in mind that almost all those lights are powered by the burning of fossil fuels. Only a small percentage of them are powered by nuke plants.) It graphically illustrates why those who deny that we're affecting the biosphere are kidding themselves. With this much going on, day after day, decade after decade, there's no doubt that the question isn't whether we're affecting the life-support system of the planet. The question is whether or not we're going to get away with it.

 

[Famine]

Yep. Because you can see our contribution, we're the ones to blame, right?

Oh, wait:

 

[Kylehnat]

Famine, if you can clearly explain what that little "NOTE" at the bottom means, I might actually trust that graph to mean something.

 

[Famine]

Taking carbon dioxide's potential to increase the Earth's temperature as "1", all other Greenhouse Gases released are adjusted relative to this.

Example. Assume 1 molecule of CO2 increases the Earth's temperature by 10 degrees Celsius (it doesn't, but assume it). Assume 1 molecule of leopard fart gas increases the Earth's temperature by 5 degrees Celsius (same again).

This means that, molecule-per-molecule, leopard fart gas has HALF the "Global Warming Potential" (GWP) of carbon dioxide, thus contributions in the form of leopard fart gas are half as important as contributions of CO2 (or 0.5:1 leopard fart gas:carbon dioxide), and are represented as such on the pie chart.

 

[Kylehnat]

Okay, that makes sense.

However, I don't like that graph at all. It has three catagories: water vapor (an actual molecule), non human processes, and human processes (not molecules). Unless they actually list which chemicals they're talking about, it's comparing apples to oranges. Whether or not they are right, their data is displayed very poorly in that graph, and makes me not want to listen to them.

Water vapor is the biggest contributor to the greenhouse effect. Why don't we care? Because it's atmospheric concentration is essentially constant. Furthermore, it can regulate itself through liquid-vapor equilibrium. If there is too much water in the gas phase for a given temperature, some of it will condense to a liquid until it reaches the correct vapor pressure. So, when a water vapor molecule enters the atmosphere, it may not stay there very long. Hence water vapor, while a big contributor to the greenhouse effect, is ignored in the global warming discussion. So throw out that 95% piece. NOW how big is the human contribution?

Now let's compare water to CO2, to further see why artificial (read: human) release of CO2 could be problematic. Unlike water, when a carbon dioxide molecule enters the atmosphere, it stays there for a very long time, because 1) CO2 only exists as a gas in natural Earth conditions, so it will not condense out of the vapor phase, and 2)because it is one of the most stable chemical species on earth. CO2 is also a more POTENT greenhouse gas than water, due to the dual carbon-oxygen double bonds, whose vibrational modes can store more infrared energy than the hydrogen-oxygen single bond in water. This is why there is so much commotion over the human contribution to the CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

[BlackZ28]

You believe in "Global Warming" despite the fact that it doesn't exist - as the "Hole in the Ozone layer" doesn't exist.

👍

 

[Zardoz]

I guess its a matter of whose data and opinions are more credible to you. The fourth-largest oil and gas company in the world says this:

Total's opinion of what is going on

From that page:

Historical studies of our climate show that both atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and the Earth's temperature have varied over time. However, since the beginning of the industrial age, the concentration of Greenhouse gases has increased very rapidly, by 50%. Each year, human activity emits 6 billion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere and about 3.3 billion are in excess and stored in the atmosphere. This is just a small amount in relation to the 150 billion metric tons exchanged naturally between the atmosphere, plants and the oceans, but it is enough to increase the greenhouse effect and disrupt the climate's delicate balance.

Famine, you claim that the whole global warming brouhaha is just smoke being blown by the "have-nots", in some sort of attempt on their part to do something to the "haves" (which is quite a conspiracy theory), and we should just "deal with it". However, I would say Total is definitely classifiable as being among the "haves", and they don't agree with you at all. How do you explain that?

 

[Famine]

Where do they disagree with me? Looks to me like they say human activity is 1/25th of "natural" releases of carbon dioxide (as opposed to your "Look! You can SEE how evil we are from this map of the world." version) - which is actually less than the accepted figure of 8%. It also looks like they don't mention "global warming", which brings us right back to my checklist.

• You don't seem to understand what "Global Warming" is.
• You don't seem to understand how "Global Warming" is separate from "Global Climate Change", or how both are separate from the change in average global temperatures.
• You don't seem to want to understand that the change in average global temperatures does not correlate with human carbon dioxide emissions, but it does seem to correspond with global forest cover (and the numbers of pirates).
• You don't appear to be able to accept any other explanation than "SUVs do it", despite the facts - never contradicted by ecological organisations or any source you have posted yet - that internal combustion engines account for ~0.25% of global carbon dioxide emissions and man accounts for ~8% of global carbon dioxide emissions. And man's share is STILL falling.
• You don't appear to notice that no source you've posted has a graph of average global temperature which starts before 1840. Even if you're a Young-Earth-believer, that's a rather short time (165 years out of 6,000, or 4.5 billion) to draw any conclusion at all.
• You have a belief. This makes your scientific judgement flawed.

If you analyse the data yourself you would see that not only is mankind unlikely to be (solely or even partly) responsible for the change in average global temperature - thus rendering "Global warming" a myth - but that is would appear to be a long term natural trend. The decay of the Earth's orbit, combined with the Sun's aging (and consequent increase in temperature and flaring) is also a factor, though how big of one - almost none, insignificant or slight - is a matter of some debate.

Their final word is that, though the IPCC believes that human activity is having more of an effect than our emissions should proportionately achieve, "uncertainty remains"

Hardly a scything disagreement then.

 

[Zardoz]

Where do they disagree with me?

So you agree with this? :

How much have temperatures risen?
During the 20th century, the average surface temperature rose 0.6°C. According to a report entitled "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis" from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the average temperature is expected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8°C between 1990 and 2100, with a corresponding rise in average sea levels of 9 to 88 cm. IPCC was established by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization in 1988.

When in doubt, do something about it!
Although uncertainty remains, the assumption most widely accepted by the IPCC has established a relationship between greenhouse gas emissions from human activity and the average, non-uniform increase in temperatures on Earth.
As a result, the wisest course would be to apply the precaution principle, which calls for taking measures even if a risk is not fully understood-especially since the world's growing population is using more and more energy.

 

[Famine]

Apart from the IPCC's "assumption" (Total's words, not mine). And the conclusion to the Climate Change article - since they totally failed to take account of the fact that we won't have much in the way of fossil fuel left to burn by 2050, let alone 2100, and they assumed an increase in use of a finite resource.


Which brings up another point. Just because I say - or anyone else, for that matter - that what we do doesn't have a noticeable, detrimental effect on the planet, doesn't mean that I think we should pump as much crap into the air as we can. I'd love a 400hp, 200mpg car - why wouldn't I? It'd save me money (at the most basic level). However, it doesn't mean I'd want one no matter what.

 

[Danoff]

So you agree with this? :

When in doubt, do something about it!
Although uncertainty remains, the assumption most widely accepted by the IPCC has established a relationship between greenhouse gas emissions from human activity and the average, non-uniform increase in temperatures on Earth.
As a result, the wisest course would be to apply the precaution principle, which calls for taking measures even if a risk is not fully understood-especially since the world's growing population is using more and more energy.

I like this "when you don't know what's happening, flail about and maybe you'll fix it" philosophy.

Is this the argument? Seriously? Because if that's the argument, that based on the chance that we could be causing harm we should impose huge costs on our society, then I think my side of this discussion has already won.

 

[Zardoz]

"Look! You can SEE how evil we are from this map of the world."

Not evil, just busy. We could keep our over-developed cerebral cortexes as active as we wanted to, and pile on as many of the great conveniences of modern life as we could, and still not do appreciable damage to the biosphere if only there weren't so many of us. If the global population was five hundred million instead of six billion, none of this would be an issue. If the global population could have somehow been held to under a billion, we'd be home free.

But it wasn't, and we're not. There are just too damned many of us. That's what Total is talking about when they said this, Danoff:

As a result, the wisest course would be to apply the precaution principle, which calls for taking measures even if a risk is not fully understood-especially since the world's growing population is using more and more energy.

It isn't like we're dealing with a static situation. As industrializaton proceeds worldwide, the problem is compounded. Just the effect that all those Chinese could have as they catch up with Europe and North America is cause for very great concern.

I'm very pessimistic about our ability to "take measures" that will have any real effect. We're not going to turn off all those lights. We're not going to somehow drastically reduce our usage of petroleum products until we simply start running out of crude oil and are forced to. By then it may be too late. If the worst climate-change models turn out to be correct, this little planet will not be near the hospitable place its been for the last 10,000 years or so, which just happens to be the period when we built civilization as we know it.

Life may be a lot simpler for people at the next turn of the century. They may only be concerning themselves with some very basic tasks.

Of course, if the worst of the worst-case scenarios come true, the global population just may get back to that reasonable number I was going on about. Maybe things will work themselves out that way...

 

[James2097]

I agree with the idea that we should at least be cautious (in the face of uncertainty) and cut back CO2 pollution where we can, and actually put some decent money into development of some clean energy sources (sorry, but that doesn't include nuclear guys, besides there ain't enough uranium (or a good form of disposal of waste) to last indefinately - surely the description of time we want humans to be around).

When talking about "imposing" an irrational cost to society we have to realise that being careful in its own right is a valid thing to do when the stakes are this high. Even using a gambling analogy is wrong in this case. We simply shouldn't gamble on this, its simply about as important as it gets for the human race. Anyway, no one's proposing a huge change in people's lifestyles, just a smarter way to achieve it. No amount of short-term wealth or luxuries justifies potentially screwing everything up for EVERYONE.

Yes, there is evidence for both sides, but we can only lose (or gain in the very short term) by taking one side (Famine's) and only win by taking the other (being cautious and polluting less). Even if it turns out that the "left wing wacko's" are arrogant in THEIR concept that humans can really affect the Earth to a great degree, you'll still be around to talk about it, and the world will be better off anyway with a decrease in crap going into the air, plus we'll have developed some decent energy sources that'll do us nicely into the next millenium and beyond.

Now even at the moment, who's saying that current lifestyles are acceptable? I hate how cities stink like a bastard. I think Melbourne stinks, and that got voted "the world's most livable city" in a certain publication, with a very small degree (by world standard) of pollution. I really can't see the problem with being careful. The odds are like this:

Take a cautious approach: 100% chance of survival into the foreseeable future, perhaps with a slight hit to the economy, until clean forms of energy become the norm for the industry, then its kick arse human race forever.

or:
Take a "I'm a know-it-all, we can't effect the Earth cause it depends how you look at the data, besides I make lots of money right now and I won't ever do anything to look like a whinger cause I'm right wing... well, I don't really know but I'm a betting man" approach and say (totally invented statistics) there's a 50% chance we'll be fine (Earth fixes itself), a 25% chance we'll all die eventually, and a 25% chance we'll live but with substantially reduced quality of life. My point is that the probability for everything to be sweet and dandy are not 100%, which makes this option instantly the crappier of the two.

I know what side of the argument makes sense when we're talking about perhaps the most important decision in the history of the human race. Am I confident humans are capable of putting personal gain aside and seeing the benefit in being cautious? Nope, we're all selfish dumbarses. It won't happen.

Sure, its obviously illogical (in normal kinds of issues) to take great economic burden without HARDCORE evidence that you're wrong, but this ain't a game a poker, or a business style decision. Normal procedures of weighing up of evidence and taking into account economics etc just isn't valid in this case. The issue is WAY above that crap, we get ONE chance, if we make the wrong assumption we're potentially buggered. I thought assumptions were things scientists didn't like, eh Famine!?


How about a metaphor? Someone pulls a gun on you, its a revolver with one bullet in it, Russian roulette style. Unless you give him some money (but retain your job so you can potentially just make more $$ anyway) he'll pull the trigger.

You can sit there and be a smart-arse "I really don't think I'm in any danger guys, its fine. Really."
Or you can give the guy some money and he'll go away. Less macho but you have a 100% chance of living.

Is it this basic to anyone else? Unless there is some amazingly compelling evidence one way or the other I haven't seen, it really is this simple.

 

[Famine]

(sorry, but that doesn't include nuclear guys, besides there ain't enough uranium (or a good form of disposal of waste) to last indefinately - surely the description of time we want humans to be around).

What about Plutonium-based reactors and fast-breeders (which make... nuclear fission fuel)?

Yes, there is evidence for both sides, but we can only lose (or gain in the very short term) by taking one side (Famine's) and only win by taking the other (being cautious and polluting less).

[...]

Even if it turns out that the "left wing wacko's" are arrogant in THEIR concept that humans can really affect the Earth to a great degree, you'll still be around to talk about it, and the world will be better off anyway with a decrease in crap going into the air, plus we'll have developed some decent energy sources that'll do us nicely into the next millenium and beyond.

I know what side of the argument makes sense when we're talking about perhaps the most important decision in the history of the human race. Am I confident humans are capable of putting personal gain aside and seeing the benefit in being cautious? Nope, we're all selfish dumbarses. It won't happen.

Which brings up another point. Just because I say - or anyone else, for that matter - that what we do doesn't have a noticeable, detrimental effect on the planet, doesn't mean that I think we should pump as much crap into the air as we can.

It was only one post ago.

Even using a gambling analogy is wrong in this case. We simply shouldn't gamble on this, its simply about as important as it gets for the human race.

[...]

How about a metaphor? Someone pulls a gun on you, its a revolver with one bullet in it, Russian roulette style. Unless you give him some money (but retain your job so you can potentially just make more $$ anyway) he'll pull the trigger.

Mmmmmm.... consistency.... *drools*

Still, it's good to see you point out that environmentalists (with the stress off the first three syllables) are gun-toting lunatics.