patronizing those who are alarmed by climate change

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bob Allen @ Jun 6 2006, 12:56 PM) [snapback]266714[/snapback]</div>

You might want to go back to Newsweek Magazine sometime in 1975 - front cover -- "The Coming Ice Age"
In thirty years the wackos have gone from cold to hot - a reflection of how much hot air they are expelling.

And algore should stop chasing windmills - it would save the world a lot of green house gases if he stopped jetting around in his lear jet, sold his armored Chevy Suburban, and just sat home and counted his riches from his Google stock - $50,000,000.00 and heading up (how did he get those options???).

Algores movie has attracted as many movie goers as supporters that voted for him in his home of Tenessee - well almost as many.

And if you are really worried about humans warming the planet - you should focus your efforts on China and India; and of course push for nuclear power here in the US - aiming for a % close to our european friends - or about 70% of total energy production.

And you forgot a bunch of people - those that know enough and don't believe in it. Maybe you are wrong in your beliefs??

 

the thing is, there is actually no room for opinion here: industry is accelerating global warming. it is a hard fact. pollution caused by humans is having serious, large scale effect on the climate. this is irrefutable. there are *liars* on the right who attempt to spin the numbers and play down the problem. but they are LIARS.

i'm always ready to admit i'm wrong. but on this particular matter i, along with every scientist on the planet, am absolutely correct. humans have to change, and we have to change very soon, or we will kill ourselves.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(samkusnetz @ Jun 6 2006, 09:21 AM) [snapback]266730[/snapback]</div>

"back in the day"... the big thing was ZPG zero population growth...we got to many humans on this planet..period...and too many mouths to fill...whetever by cars, business, human polltuion, we are killing this planet and reagrdless of your politcal bent, we have to reverse this trend. The Prius is way to start.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Jun 6 2006, 04:23 PM) [snapback]266843[/snapback]</div>

That is a valid point- "global warming" is a somewhat deceptive term, as many of the effects from greenhouse gases (cooling due to disruption of the North Atlantic Current, or thickening of the Antarctic ice sheet) might seem counterintuitive. I don't like the term "climate change", because that sounds relatively benign, and also seems to ignore the anthropogenic component. The term that I prefer, which I think more accurately describes the phenomenon, is "global climate disruption."

 

Its my understanding that the scientific consensus on global warming being a fact is on the order of the level of the scientific consensus that cigarette smoking causes cancer. As I see it, you can't get much more certain than that. Yet, still, the "its all a bunch of you know what" camp exists - which boggles my mind. :huh:

 

I used to truly not understand what the big deal was about 'global warming.' I have always loved learning about climatology, and I was particularly interested in paleoclimatology - you can see regular patterns throughout geologic history, which (I believe) is where the 'Ice Age Coming' idea comes from. It's pretty nifty - occasionally you see blips, where you apparently had some sort of mitigating factor, like massive volcanic eruptions, impacts, tectonic events and processes that result in changes in circulation, changes caused by life forms... It's happened before, it will happen again, so what was the problem? We were just the next thing that earth was going to have to equilibrate into its system. We might be changing things much faster than say, the changes caused by an earth covered with enormous plant eaters producing methane, but even uniformitarians have to admit that there are some truly fast events - we were just one of them. We'd probably have lots of unfortunate legal battles over coast lands, probably some adaptations to be made, but we have the ability to adapt too. I also figured that if things got out of hand, we're a pretty smart people when push comes to shove, and we'd step up to the task.

Well, it's a few years later, and I had a truly great maturing experience through a youth service organization, instilling some sense of social responsibility into a really anti-social girl. I've taken classes on climatology, geologic history, and ecology with respect to human intervention... I've developed a protective sense of responsibility for the world in general - an expansion of the backwoods I've always loved - every species and every locale. Above even this, I learned to care about people - those who suffer now, our youth, our future generations. Humans as a species will survive nearly anything, but I've come to believe that we owe this planet something, if for no other reason (though to me there are an infinite number of other reasons) than to gift it to our descendants. Be good stewards, and all that. Effects of higher temperatures have devastating effects (I think this is what Gore will be presenting for the masses with his book and movie) on all the life on this planet - even (especially?) humans and that MATTERS. It ought to matter.

It's always been easy to look back at catastrophic geologic events and their effects (think of all the armageddon-style threats) in the past and view them fairly impersonally. Now it's not history, it's *our* world, and I think it's worth protecting what matters. Even if you aren't ready to accept causuality, you have to accept that we are losing things worth protecting. I can't be the only person in the world who gets a cold feeling when I think about the fact that the Great Barrier Reef might be lost before I get the chance to see it.


EDIT: I wanted to add that I was *incredibly* disappointed when I learned about Chrichton's stance - I've always enjoyed his work. Well researched details, accessible and attractive characters - good reads. I'm sure Ellie Satler had something to do with my interest in geology and Twister might be why I'm still leaning away from a straight geology masters. I haven't read State of Fear, and I'm sort of glad. I'd prefer to just remember his other stuff. Maybe someday we'll have made enough of an impact that I'll be able to read it - I'm sure he weaves a great tale, one I'll be able to enjoy when it's a less sensitive issue.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ Jun 6 2006, 10:34 PM) [snapback]267020[/snapback]</div>

Well put, but remember that Chrichton does not represent mainstream science. If he did, his main work would be science, not fiction. Twister contains many flaws that are considered scientific fallacy. IMHO, it is questionable politics that even remotely gives him a voice.

For anyone interested:

"The Climate Makers" by Tim Flannery

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Jun 6 2006, 02:20 PM) [snapback]266885[/snapback]</div>

I don't think Chrichton is a shill for anyone ... he's a pretty independent cuss. He certainly doesn't have a job that's related to the oil industry. I think he brings his usual questioning skepticism to that question. He's a medical doctor, not a climatologist (or whatever scientific discipline would be involved in global climate change), at least as far as I remember his CV. So his opinion would carry as much weight in my mind as any other really smart guy talking about something out of his field.

The planet will survive us all, but we may not survive our own "pooping in our nest" syndrome. Air quality is certainly getting better in American cities, and the ozone hole over Antartica is reported to be shrinking after the ban on CFCs. I wonder about the new industrial revolution happening in China and India, and if the gains we've enjoyed will be overshadowed by their pollution in the coming years.

There is always a trade off between cost and benefit. Usually those decisions can be made more dispassionately by someone in one of the scientific disciplines rather than a politician or bureaucrat. But the interface between public policy and scientific knowledge has always been through our elected officials and their bureaucrats.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jun 8 2006, 01:00 AM) [snapback]267721[/snapback]</div>

That is the way it should work. Scientists look at the problem and come up with their best answers, free from political influence or pressure to support any particular agenda. Then the politicians and decision-makers take that information and use it to help them make the best decisions they can on regulatory and policy matters. Of course, they also have to factor in other concerns, such as cost, social issues, etc.

But that is not how science and policy work today. Never before has science been subverted as it is in the current administration. Real experts have been replaced on advisory and regulatory boards by industry shills. Reports on global warming and other science issues have been "edited" so that they don't conflict with administration agendas. When decision makers don't get the truth, they can't do their job.

The nay-saying comments that are made hear ("global warming is a hoax", etc.) reflects what's being said in the right-wing echo chamber, which implies that global warming is nothing more than some sort of left-wing conspiracy. This is not a political issue; it's science. People should WANT to know the truth about global. warming- and yes, some aspects of it are subject to debate, while others are incontrovertible . Then, the discussion could be, knowing what we know, what measures should we take, and that's where the trade-offs factor in.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bob Allen @ Jun 6 2006, 03:53 PM) [snapback]266869[/snapback]</div>

Yes, what about the other key elements of our ecosystem? You know, the ones that pollinate the majority of what we eat? If plant species go extinct, so do certain pollinators. If warming trends alter the blooming periods of plants faster than reliant species are quipped to handle, more species will go extinct. On another topic, arming our land with loads of genetically aletered crops is not a great idea, so far as I'm concerned. There are worries of these crops escaping into natural areas and over running native species on which a lot of our other ecosytem parnters depend. Since a lot of these crops are armed with genes that are resistant to herbices, these will be a tremendous nuisance. Also, who the heck wants to eat a plant that is spliced with a gene that kills insects as is corn?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wiyosaya @ Jun 7 2006, 09:07 AM) [snapback]267188[/snapback]</div>

It's called the Weathermakers.

 

I am getting really tired of people trying to argue agianst climate change and then citing gore as an example of polluting the environment. It's a pathetic argument. You can't have it both ways.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 6 2006, 01:17 PM) [snapback]266729[/snapback]</div>

In regards to the 1975 newsweek article, all I can propose is that climate models then were inaccurate... I don't think we had VIABLE computers or computers at the time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 6 2006, 01:17 PM) [snapback]266729[/snapback]</div>

Here's a possible explanation:

Most of the warming occurred during two periods: 1910 to 1945 and 1976 to 2000; the cooling/plateau from 1945 to 1976 is attributed to sulphate aerosol [2]. Attribution of the temperature change to natural or anthropogenic factors is an important question: see global warming and attribution of recent climate change."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/462.htm

 

"Adding carbon dioxide (CO2) or methane (CH4) to Earth's atmosphere, with no other changes, will make the planet's surface warmer; greenhouse gases create a natural greenhouse effect without which temperatures on Earth would be an estimated 30 °C lower, and the Earth uninhabitable. It is therefore not correct to say that there is a debate between those who "believe in" and "oppose" the theory that adding carbon dioxide or CH4 to the Earth's atmosphere will result in warmer surface temperatures on Earth, absent indirect mitigating effects. Rather, the debate is about what the net effect of the addition of carbon dioxide and CH4 will be."

"Due to the thermal inertia of the earth's oceans and slow responses of other indirect effects, the Earth's current climate is not in equilibrium with the forcing imposed by increased greenhouse gases. Climate commitment studies indicate that, even if greenhouse gases were stabilised at present day levels, a further warming of perhaps 0.5 °C to 1.0 °C would still occur."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

 

Let's say we make the changes a belief in Global Warming calls for and they're wrong. What do we get? Well, a cleaner, healthier planet.

Let's say we ignore the Global Warming warnings and they're right? What happens then? By the time you get all of the doubters to believe and the government regulators to force companies to change....too late.

I'd rather be cautious and wrong than reckless and right.