Confused about global warming

tempo rnnr wrote:

It looks like the only reasonable choice, at least to me, is to act like we are causing global warming, and change. Where am I missing something. I obviously am wrong, because the smart people in the government would be idiots to not agree unless I am wrong somewhere.

What you are missing is that many people do not make logical decisions. Our government is populated by the sorts of people who think the bible is a viable manual for foreign policy decisions. These sorts of people don't make logical decisions. They tend to make a decision based not on fact, but on emotion -- then they try and craft the facts to fit their decision.

Do you see?

I do believe that anything to make people take notice (and action) about global warming would be good... but to be fair the main gas implicated in global warming is CO2 and that has no detrimental effect on your lungs.

Furthermore, the effect of the large particle pollution which may cause respiratory problems is rather complicated. It has been implicated in the 'global dimming' effect which has been counteracting many of the negative effects of global warming... unless you are unlucky and live in Africa/Asia. It is therfore almost possible that you would want to be carfull about sudenly reduceing the levels in the atmosphere.

Basically your second postulate is not correct. Our output of CO2 would not worry you unless you accept global warming since it is non carcinogenic and the actual relative quantity in the atmosphere is still rather low.

If the global warming myth causes mankind to reduce our wasteful use of energy,of all sources,it will serve its purpose.

Judy wrote:

If the global warming myth causes mankind to reduce our wasteful use of energy,of all sources,it will serve its purpose.

And that is the ultimate point. Those that would have the government control even more of what we do cannot win the debate on the merits and so they push a lie to trick people into doing what they want them to do.

What you are missing is that many people do not make logical decisions. Our government is populated by the sorts of people who think the bible is a viable manual for foreign policy decisions. These sorts of people don't make logical decisions. They tend to make a decision based not on fact, but on emotion -- then they try and craft the facts to fit their decision.

Do you see?[/quote]

I would disagree. Business, not religion, is the reason that decisions are made the way they are. Specifically, people with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo assert their will where policy is concerned. I would argue that the logic at the top is, in many ways, extremely logical - just that they use logic for self-preservation and profit, rather than the common good.

I would also argue that this works for many politicians regardless of party affiliation.

I'm a Republican, but I hate many in the current administration. Basically, I'm not psycho conservative. I think from my side though, what makes global warming not so kosher to a lot of "conservatives," is that its biggest proponent is Al Gore. Conservatives absolutely hate Al Gore. If Ronald Reagan were alive and telling people about global warming, Republicans would believe him and support strategies to fix the problem. In this scenerio, you would have much less democratic support.

As sad as this may sound, it's the current trend in American politics: hate everything the opposite party may propose.

Happy Festivus

Point taken on CO2, but there are many different gasses that are given off by emissions, not just CO2, and many of these have had noticeable effects on people (see LA during a heat wave in the summer, or Beijing).

AnimalsEatYou wrote:

I do believe that anything to make people take notice (and action) about global warming would be good... but to be fair the main gas implicated in global warming is CO2 and that has no detrimental effect on your lungs.

Furthermore, the effect of the large particle pollution which may cause respiratory problems is rather complicated. It has been implicated in the 'global dimming' effect which has been counteracting many of the negative effects of global warming... unless you are unlucky and live in Africa/Asia. It is therfore almost possible that you would want to be carfull about sudenly reduceing the levels in the atmosphere.

Basically your second postulate is not correct. Our output of CO2 would not worry you unless you accept global warming since it is non carcinogenic and the actual relative quantity in the atmosphere is still rather low.

sadly, one of the above posters was correct. It isn't that the current administration is a bunch of bible thumpers who think that everything is in God's hands, it is that the rival political party lay claim to the environmental movement, so therefore you have to gainsay anything they put out there and keep them from gaining control. George Washington was right when he said that political parties were a bad idea- they lead to divisive, polar, senseless bickering and once they gain power, they exist to support only themselves, not the country as a whole. They all toe the party line and go in a direction that half thinks makes perfect sense and the other half hates.

As far as how this occurs to global warming, I don't think anyone disagrees that we have to start reducing pollution. My biggest concern is that we DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES LET THE GOVERNMENT DICTATE AND REGULATE THAT CHANGE. Seriously, the government has too much power over us as it is, if we start letting the government put further regulations (punishable by fines and prison time) on our daily lives, and on business, everyone loses. You think China is going to bother with a Cap and Trade agreement? If we adoppted something like that, all it will do is make businesses even more likely to export US jobs overseas to places that can make stuff cheaper.

The real trick is to get people to start doing this out of their own volition, instead of having the government mandate it. A trickier proposition, but I don't think anyone in here wants to pay a carbon tax or get laid off or be forced to buy a new car to save a tiny fraction of carbon from being released into the environment. And if you say you wouldn't care... bullshit. If you really don't care about that money that you earned, then send it to me and I'll hold my breath for a while, that ought to do the trick.

there's another thread on this:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2283120

the problem with the "worst case scenario" type of planning is that we don't know exactly what we're planning for

despite the hype surrounding global warming, the climate models used to develop the dire predictions are unreliable and need to be greatly improved before we can trust them

In the meantime we could royally screw up our economy and waste a lot of resources trying to remedy an issue that may not actually be a problem or at least not what we think it is...

Finally, I love the lefties on here who have no problem cloaking their agenda behind fear mongering. The instant that someone affiliated with an oil company does a study everyone's all over their shit without addressing what they say. However, it's perfectly fine to scare people into some eco-green, limpdick vegan lifestyle. Yeah, no ethical problem there.

You're looking for rational, truthful debate about global warming on letsrun? Most of the boys on this site have been brainwashed by the righties.

Lazy L wrote:

You're looking for rational, truthful debate about global warming on letsrun? Most of the boys on this site have been brainwashed by the righties.

You're saying conservatives can't agree global warming is a large, man-made problem?

Obama and other Democrats are a lot more Christian than George Bush, too.

Just start drinking...

I heard or read this and I'll pass it along:

"Never underestimate a person's ability to not understand something when it is in his interest to not understand it."

Tom

Well, one reason why we might not want to just believe (without definitive proof)that we are the cause of GW is that making the changes you suggest we should will cost A LOT of money. That is why, umm, some folks want to be sure before instituting changes.

Think about this, if GW is real and caused my mankind, is another 20 or even 50 years going to do all that much more damage? And if it does, well, it can be fixed then. And, if it can't be fixed then, well, then it can't be fixed now either.

...which is flat-out myopic because it neglects the short time scale over which CO2 concentrations increased to dangerous levels. The marginal impact of 20 or 50 years in the history CO2 emissions, particularly 20 or 50 years during which population and per capital consumption are highest, is huge.

And actually, "costs a lot of money" ignores the market failures that led to such high emissions. And the proof, unless you've been paid to see otherwise, is definitive.

Why is letsrun so far behind the curve on this?

Truth Bringer wrote:

Those that would have the government control even more of what we do cannot win the debate on the merits and so they push a lie to trick people into doing what they want them to do.

The government couldn't control global warming anymore than it can control guns or drugs or crime or, hell, the weather. The US government is incredibly weak against anything more formidable than a handful of individuals who are lacking valuable resources. There's no short-term money in counteracting global warming.

I find this attitude rediculous. It basically says, hey to change costs a lot of money, so f*** it, whatever happens happens.

Your second point about 20-50 years not mattering means you haven't thought about this very critically. With emissions increasing as they are, and the build up that could potentially cause global warming occuring at an ever increasing pace, at some point, assuming GW is real, you hit a critical point. The idea would be to break before this critical point, which could happen in the next 20-50 years.

Lets put this a different way than I first stated my issue. Lets assume costs of changing is some crazy high number, say 1 trillion dollars.

Possibility 1: We don't change. GW is wrong. Net gain/loss from not changing = (0)

Possibility 2: We don't change and it is real. Catastrophe occurs. Net loss of a catastrophe which results in the massive problems is definitely greater than the initial costs of change. For reference, Katrina cost more than 200 billion, and if predictions are accurate, this will be chump change to potential problems (Katrina estimates:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9281409/). Net loss of > than cost of change => a few trillion)

Possibility 3: We change, GW is false. Occur initial costs of change (1 trillion lost)

Possibility 4: We change. Prevent catastrophe. We end up positive, averting the crisis. Net gain, probably a few trillion.

So if we go with change nothing, the best we do is break even, and we could get royally screwed if GW is true.

If we do change, we either lose some sum of money, or end up saving a sum much greater than the original. So either risk nothing and possibly lose a ton, or risk, lose some sum of money, with the possibility of a much higher payback. I'd go with changing, especially since the odds of GW being true definitely seem to be at least 50%.

tempo rnnr wrote:

I find this attitude rediculous. It basically says, hey to change costs a lot of money, so f*** it, whatever happens happens.

That's not what I said.

What I said, essentially, was, if over the next 20 to 50 years it is proven definitively that humans are causing global warming and that changes must be instituted to fix it, that it can be fixed then. If, on the other hand, it is proven that we have no affect on it, then we won't have to spend all the money to make the changes since the changes would be ineffective. In other words, if you're saying we can fix the problems now (by making changes) then we can also fix them in 20 years (by making changes) so wy not be patient and wait for all the facts to be determined before instituting massive changes that will affect our planet in ways you cannot fathom at this point.

In fact, as technology improves, it will be easer to fix the problems then than it is now. And while another 20 years of emmissions would be harmful, if you claim we can fix what has happened already then we can certainly fix it all in 20 years.

Please try not to lump everything you've heard that contradicts your thesis into the simple statement I made. But nice going with your liberal, lack of logic-based thinking by changing what I said into what you wanted me to say.

I'll refrain from getting into your intellectual discussion of "crazy high numbers" and "getting royally screwed."