|
|
|
|
dingus
Mar 14, 2005, 9:23 PM
Post #26 of 57
(5003 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: In reply to: I also don't know why most of us help pay for the subsidization of insurance on homes and property in flood plains. Well now there's actually a good point. We should create disincentives for living in flood plains, not incentives.
We ARE doing it! Some folks act like this is all static and never changing when in fact they don't appear to know what is going on in their own country.
Just try buying insurance on a house in that town that had the mudslide a while back (sorry, the name escapes me at the moment). In fact, it was next to impossible BEFORE the slide. And the government announced they would not be bailing out the affected home owners. A tiny step, sure, but a step in the right direction nevertheless (our populist govenor of course offered to help bail them out, with the empty checkbook he like to wield).
Areas with high risk of flood are incredibly expensive insurance wise in Cali and in some areas, FEMA subsidies are not available at all.
And we are starting to talk about far more aggressive setbacks. We are starting to learn of the massive damage a hundred years of flood control has wrought to the Mississippi.
Flood plain setbacks are of vital importance and 'not talking about them' simply insures the problem will never go away.
Fact: we could eliminate manmade green house gasses today and the peoples who live on the flood plains of those Asian rivers will remain at risk, ergo the greenhouse gasses are not responsible for the risk to begin with, which was the central point of the cited OP article (to bring this back to point)
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
cintune
Mar 15, 2005, 2:10 AM
Post #27 of 57
(5003 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1293
|
My house is on a low terrace overlooking a floodplain. The last mountain glaciers around here melted 18,000 years ago, though, so I don't worry too much about it.
The environment on the surface of earth has never been under any obligation to nurture and protect human beings. That fact has made us what we are, and has led to all the things we do. Maybe if the earth had treated us a little better when we were just getting started, we wouldn't be burning all this coal in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
noshoesnoshirt
Mar 15, 2005, 2:36 AM
Post #28 of 57
(5003 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2002
Posts: 440
|
In reply to: It cannot be argued, living on a flood plain will result in eventual flooding, global warming notwithstanding. It is an immutable fact. DMT
err, umm...
what?
maybe the weight of all those people makes it sink?
|
|
|
|
|
td
Mar 15, 2005, 4:43 AM
Post #29 of 57
(5003 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 21, 2003
Posts: 63
|
In reply to: The good people of India, China, Nepal, Pakistan, Bangledesh, etc should stop expecting others to solve their own self-created problems for them. I do not believe climate prediction science is up to the job of telling us whether there will be more or less water running down those rivers in 100 years, so this news blurb, and the underlying announcement, is just sensationalism, pure and simple, issued for purely political purposes. I'm not moved, sorry. DMT
Hmm, where in the article does it list the expectations of these "good people"?
Somehow I doubt if they expect anything more from us than bigger SUVs & 500 hp corvettes stuck in traffic, 5000 Sq ft homes, 60 inch plasma, etc. Maybe throw in a few M1A2's as well.
Based on our history, I don't think you and Karl Rove have any cause for concern that the US will ever willingly put any limits on fossil fuel consumption (except for the $150 per barrel of crude type of disincentive)
As for climate prediction:
So you don't believe the prediction that the snowmelt from the Sierra will occur a few weeks earlier in an average spring? Supposedly it already occurs 2 weeks earlier than 50 years ago. And substitute rain for snow.
And that much of this water can not be stored in reservoirs to make up for the loss of snow storage?
|
|
|
|
|
td
Mar 15, 2005, 4:45 AM
Post #30 of 57
(5003 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 21, 2003
Posts: 63
|
In reply to: The good people of India, China, Nepal, Pakistan, Bangledesh, etc should stop expecting others to solve their own self-created problems for them. I do not believe climate prediction science is up to the job of telling us whether there will be more or less water running down those rivers in 100 years, so this news blurb, and the underlying announcement, is just sensationalism, pure and simple, issued for purely political purposes. I'm not moved, sorry. DMT
Hmm, where in the article does it list the expectations of these "good people"?
Somehow I doubt if they expect anything more from us than bigger SUVs & 500 hp corvettes stuck in traffic, 5000 Sq ft homes, 60 inch plasma, etc. Maybe throw in a few M1A2's as well.
Based on our history, I don't think you and Karl Rove have any cause for concern that the US will ever willingly put any limits on fossil fuel consumption (except for the $150 per barrel of crude type of disincentive)
As for climate prediction:
So you don't believe the prediction that the snowmelt from the Sierra will occur a few weeks earlier in an average spring? Supposedly it already occurs 2 weeks earlier than 50 years ago. And substitute rain for snow.
And that much of this water can not be stored in reservoirs to make up for the loss of snow storage?
|
|
|
|
|
td
Mar 15, 2005, 4:47 AM
Post #31 of 57
(5003 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 21, 2003
Posts: 63
|
In reply to: The good people of India, China, Nepal, Pakistan, Bangledesh, etc should stop expecting others to solve their own self-created problems for them. I do not believe climate prediction science is up to the job of telling us whether there will be more or less water running down those rivers in 100 years, so this news blurb, and the underlying announcement, is just sensationalism, pure and simple, issued for purely political purposes. I'm not moved, sorry. DMT
Hmm, where in the article does it list the expectations of these "good people"?
Somehow I doubt if they expect anything more from us than bigger SUVs & 500 hp corvettes stuck in traffic, 5000 Sq ft homes, 60 inch plasma, etc. Maybe throw in a few M1A2's as well.
Based on our history, I don't think you and Karl Rove have any cause for concern that the US will ever willingly put any limits on fossil fuel consumption (except for the $150 per barrel of crude type of disincentive)
As for climate prediction:
So you don't believe the prediction that the snowmelt from the Sierra will occur a few weeks earlier in an average spring? Supposedly it already occurs 2 weeks earlier than 50 years ago. And substitute rain for snow.
And that much of this water can not be stored in reservoirs to make up for the loss of snow storage?
|
|
|
|
|
td
Mar 15, 2005, 4:48 AM
Post #32 of 57
(5003 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 21, 2003
Posts: 63
|
In reply to: The good people of India, China, Nepal, Pakistan, Bangledesh, etc should stop expecting others to solve their own self-created problems for them. I do not believe climate prediction science is up to the job of telling us whether there will be more or less water running down those rivers in 100 years, so this news blurb, and the underlying announcement, is just sensationalism, pure and simple, issued for purely political purposes. I'm not moved, sorry. DMT
Hmm, where in the article does it list the expectations of these "good people"?
Somehow I doubt if they expect anything more from us than bigger SUVs & 500 hp corvettes stuck in traffic, 5000 Sq ft homes, 60 inch plasma, etc. Maybe throw in a few M1A2's as well.
Based on our history, I don't think you and Karl Rove have any cause for concern that the US will ever willingly put any limits on fossil fuel consumption (except for the $150 per barrel of crude type of disincentive)
As for climate prediction:
So you don't believe the prediction that the snowmelt from the Sierra will occur a few weeks earlier in an average spring? Supposedly it already occurs 2 weeks earlier than 50 years ago. And substitute rain for snow.
And that much of this water can not be stored in reservoirs to make up for the loss of snow storage?
|
|
|
|
|
nonick
Mar 15, 2005, 5:23 AM
Post #33 of 57
(5003 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 28, 2001
Posts: 174
|
In reply to: dingus wrote: The good people of India, China, Nepal, Pakistan, Bangledesh, etc should stop expecting others to solve their own self-created problems for them. I do not believe climate prediction science is up to the job of telling us whether there will be more or less water running down those rivers in 100 years, so this news blurb, and the underlying announcement, is just sensationalism, pure and simple, issued for purely political purposes. I'm not moved, sorry. DMT
I doubt if the people of India or China expect any help from the regime of Mr. Bush. Mr. Bush was literally shamed into assistance during the tsunami tragedy. Global warming is anyway, way down his list of priorities. Most measures to contain global warming would hurt the oil industry, which is top most priority for the regime of Mr. Bush.
I can't believe that with a single stupid post this discussion has degenerated into "us v/s them". I won't waste my time focusing on DMT's rather crude and uninformed response. I would rather focus on the fact that global warming isn't just a matter of scientific debate but a global reality. To give you another example - remember the heatwave in Europe last year that led to the deaths of so many people in France?I was just reading the Alpine Journal last night that spoke of the effects of the same in the alps. It all makes distressing reading.
Yet there are people who believe this is just sensationalism??
As for the dam I mentioned in the original post. The dam doesnt lie in India. It lies in a remote corner of Tibet. Its only when the snows melt in April or during the next monsoon will we know of the actual threat posed by the dam. By the way its not the plains that will get affected - its the mountain state of Himachal that will. Go look up a map to find out where that is.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Mar 15, 2005, 6:03 AM
Post #34 of 57
(5003 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: I can't believe that with a single stupid post this discussion has degenerated into "us v/s them". I won't waste my time focusing on DMT's rather crude and uninformed response.
You already did. Twas not me who degenerated it. I merely pointed out the single best thing those countries can do is to work to get their citizens out of harms way.
There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that curtailing greenhouse gasses will stop the glaciers from melting. That is a fact. I did not assert global warming isn't occuring. I did not side with the Bush administration, quite the contrary.
I laughed at the notion that the ministers from 2o industrialized nations can do ANYTHING AT ALL about the melting glaciers, nor do I believe we possess the science to predict the river flows in 100 years as a result of that warming.
The point about earlier melt in the Sierra and the lack of containment is well taken. We'll have to see. In the meantime, if the good people of India and China continue to live on flood plains, ignorant Karl Rove ranting notwithstanding, they will drown.
The US has begun to recognize our own danger and we should also encourage others to also beging to do setbacks. That will have a far more profound impact on the catastrophic nature of changing water levels than all the ranting in the world about freon.
Meanwhile China burns more coal than any other nation on the planet. I notice you nicely sidestepped that one.
Dismiss all you wish... blame it on Bush and lump me in there if it makes you feel superior, it doesn't matter.
Again, the single best thing these countries can be doing is getting out of the floodplains. But you don't want to talk about that, you'd rather assign blame, just like that article.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
paulraphael
Mar 15, 2005, 6:14 AM
Post #35 of 57
(5003 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2004
Posts: 670
|
In reply to: This has got to be one of the best replies ever. I'm so sick of "the sky is falling" environuts. Our last couple winters here in Michigan have been c-c-c-older and snowier than those in many years. I'll extrapolate that out forever and declare that a new ice age has started :roll:
on the off chance that you're not just being a wise ass, i'll suggest that you do a little research--including looking up the difference between "climate" and "weather." one or two or even ten cold winters in your little corner of the world constitute no evidence one way or the other on climate change. in fact, computer models of global warming show some areas of the world actually getting colder, as prevailing wind and ocean current patterns shift.
and by the way, since this is a climbing site, i'm surprised no one's mentioned the obvious: many of the world's great playgrounds are vanishing. the tetons have dramatically less summer snow and glacial ice than they did just 50 years ago. glacier national park is on its way to having no glaciers. the alps will require several years of unusually cold and snowy winters just to have a chance of recovering from the devastatingly hot summer two years ago--but that would run counter to the long term trend. glaciers have been receding rapidly in alaska, as well.
it's all true that we're between ice ages right now, and so it's natural for climates to warm and ice to recede. what's alarming (and not just to me but to clmateologists all over the world) is the rate of the warming. and the rate of the melting. even if you're a bush neocon, even if you think the third world can go straight to hell, it still might make you just a little sad to watch all those classic ice routes going away.
|
|
|
|
|
paulraphael
Mar 15, 2005, 6:15 AM
Post #36 of 57
(5003 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2004
Posts: 670
|
In reply to: This has got to be one of the best replies ever. I'm so sick of "the sky is falling" environuts. Our last couple winters here in Michigan have been c-c-c-older and snowier than those in many years. I'll extrapolate that out forever and declare that a new ice age has started :roll:
on the off chance that you're not just being a wise ass, i'll suggest that you do a little research--including looking up the difference between "climate" and "weather." one or two or even ten cold winters in your little corner of the world constitute no evidence one way or the other on climate change. in fact, computer models of global warming show some areas of the world actually getting colder, as prevailing wind and ocean current patterns shift.
and by the way, since this is a climbing site, i'm surprised no one's mentioned the obvious: many of the world's great playgrounds are vanishing. the tetons have dramatically less summer snow and glacial ice than they did just 50 years ago. glacier national park is on its way to having no glaciers. the alps will require several years of unusually cold and snowy winters just to have a chance of recovering from the devastatingly hot summer two years ago--but that would run counter to the long term trend. glaciers have been receding rapidly in alaska, as well.
it's all true that we're between ice ages right now, and so it's natural for climates to warm and ice to recede. what's alarming (and not just to me but to clmateologists all over the world) is the rate of the warming. and the rate of the melting. even if you're a bush neocon, even if you think the third world can go straight to hell, it still might make you just a little sad to watch all those classic ice routes going away.
|
|
|
|
|
horseonwheels
Mar 15, 2005, 6:18 AM
Post #37 of 57
(5003 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2005
Posts: 226
|
NONICK - The fact that you opened your reply with a statement about Bush only makes your following words ultimately partisan. It is clear that you believe that current temperature rising is caused by humans because you can then justify your hatred of certain politicians and say that they aren't doing enough about the situation.
The fact is that nobody can prove anything in the Global Warming debate.
Anyone that has firmly made up their mind one way or the other has some sort of an agenda. There are simply too many variables, i.e. volcanic eruptions, natural fires, human fires, petroleum, etc.
To support some of what DINGUS was saying, those people that live in other countries, that are in flood plains, don't have governments that can support those effected by natural disasters. I don't enjoy subsidizing people here in the US that choose to live in high-risk areas, but we can at least take care of ourselves, many others cannot, and therefore many people die unnecessarily.
The us vs. them debate is only the result of people not listening to either side. None of us here are qualified to determine our effect on the billions of years of climate shift and global change. In fact, nobody is.
|
|
|
|
|
wright
Mar 15, 2005, 3:13 PM
Post #38 of 57
(5003 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 3, 2005
Posts: 54
|
In reply to: in fact, computer models of global warming show ...
Stop right there. Computer models almost always show exactly what their designers want them to show. This is especially true when it comes to chaotic systems with lots of different variables that must be "estimated" by the researcher. Such is the case with the global climate. There's more feedback loops built into those models than you can count. And every feedback loop has an associated parameter that can be tweaked by the reasearcher.
In reply to: what's alarming (and not just to me but to clmateologists all over the world) is the rate of the warming. and the rate of the melting.
But other climatologists don't see any problesm here. They realize that we don't yet know what constitutes an alarming rate of warming/melting.
Let's face it. Right now, the earth is not the warmest that it has ever been. Other inter-glacial periods have featured very high temperatures as well. There's even evidence that Europe went through a warmer period just prior to the "Little Ice Age." And yet the earth has always recovered handily. We've only been affecting the environment for ~200 years. That's a sneeze on geologic time scales.
|
|
|
|
|
paulraphael
Mar 15, 2005, 3:24 PM
Post #39 of 57
(5003 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2004
Posts: 670
|
In reply to: Stop right there. Computer models almost always show exactly what their designers want them to show. This is especially true when it comes to chaotic systems with lots of different variables that must be "estimated" by the researcher. Such is the case with the global climate. There's more feedback loops built into those models than you can count. And every feedback loop has an associated parameter that can be tweaked by the reasearcher.
There's little dispute about the point that I was making: all models so far have shown that overall global warming will lead to some local climates cooling. Remember, we're talking about the average temp of the world rising a few degrees. If this causes prevailing winds and ocean currents to shift (which the models all point to) certain local climates could change in either direction by much more than the global average.
In reply to: But other climatologists don't see any problesm here. They realize that we don't yet know what constitutes an alarming rate of warming/melting.
I'd be interested to see what you thought if you set your biases aside and looked at specifically which climateologists are alarmed and which arent. Look at their associations and at who's paying for the research. It begins to paint a less ambiguous picture.
However: even if the best answer we can find is one of total ambiguity, we're left with a couple of givens. 1) our existence is fundamentally dependent on this large, complex, chaotic set of systems we call the global climate. And 2) we're not completely sure what will happen when we radically alter it's balance. If we're faced with these circumstances, then how smart are we to continuously upset the balance?
|
|
|
|
|
harrisha
Mar 15, 2005, 10:09 PM
Post #40 of 57
(5003 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2003
Posts: 314
|
In reply to: In reply to: The problem with global warming isn't that it will flood flood plains or something like that. Hehe, you obviously didn't read the article cited in the OP. They made a direct correlation! Cheers DMT
Point taken, it seems that to better illustrate my point I should have included the word major so that the sentence would have read: The major problem with global warming... I simply tried to raise another side of the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
harrisha
Mar 15, 2005, 10:59 PM
Post #41 of 57
(5003 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2003
Posts: 314
|
In reply to: In reply to: So the biggest problem is that were melting our nonereneuable fresh water supply. Ya good point since most people get fresh water directly from the polar ice caps, ya that's it. :roll: There exists this neat little phenomena called evaporation, well and then there is rain, and then there is evapotranspiration, and then there's...
Yes, I am aware of the concept of the water cycle. But some countries do get water from glaciers. Just not in the US as we still have other sources of usable water. The water in glacier ice is unpoluted, that being an important factor as we are actively poluting our ground, river, lake, etc.water. It is only a matter of time until we will be forced to seek ulternative sources for water. Besides the rain doesn't just fall in lakes. It also falls in the ocean. Now that water will reevaporate and it will rain again, but how do you supply water to the 7 billion other people on this earth in the mean time. If you ask the Saudis and some other Arab countries the answer is desalintation but this process is expensive and takes a lot of energy to boil salt water and then recondense the salt free vapors into drinking water.
|
|
|
|
|
mack_north
Mar 15, 2005, 11:57 PM
Post #42 of 57
(5003 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2005
Posts: 74
|
This is about as useful as listening to Doug Feith and Dick Cheney debate the merits of rap-bolting. Or watching my neice's 7th grade class perform "King Lear." Nevertheless, I'll play!
Burning a single gallon of gas releases about the same amount of carbon as found in a bag of charcoal briquettes. So each American generates about a ton of carbon each year just by driving their cars. Only an extremely small minority of climate scientists actually discount the effect of carbon emission on global warming. Average temperatures in the world have risen about 3 degrees in the last century, or about equal to what brought on the last Ice Age. We ARE having an impact - even the Bush White House recognizes this and is currently working on carbon trading programs with other nations top reduce overall emissions.
Thanks to technological advances, we emit much less carbon than we did 100 years ago. This is more than offset by the huge population boom and explosion in demand for energy. China, for example, is basing their entire emerging economy entirely around coal, and will surpass the US by 2020 as the leading producer in CO2 emissions.
Moving away from a carbon based energy model would cripple the US economy (take a point or two off the GNP), take hundreds of billions of dollars in investment, and wouldn't produce measurable reductions in atmospheric gases for 200 years. So there are no easy solutions. We have essentially painted ourselves into a corner - in order to get carbon emissions below 550ppm (what it would take to stabilize atmospheric CO2) by 2050, more than half of our emission reductions will be coming from technology that hasn't been invented yet.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Mar 16, 2005, 12:14 AM
Post #43 of 57
(5003 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: China, for example, is basing their entire emerging economy entirely around coal, and will surpass the US by 2020 as the leading producer in CO2 emissions. Moving away from a carbon based energy model would cripple the US economy (take a point or two off the GNP), take hundreds of billions of dollars in investment, and wouldn't produce measurable reductions in atmospheric gases for 200 years.
Which was exactly my point... as a nation we could put a bullet in our head and cease to exist and STILL those glaciers are going to melt. So some people say we need to do something for appearence's sake alone, and maybe we should.
But if I lived on a flood plain downstream of a glacial dam... I would hope like hell that some government official in my country would appeal less ato the ministers of 20 industrialized nations and instead work to get her own citizens out of harms way.
DMT
Cheers!
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
mack_north
Mar 16, 2005, 1:04 AM
Post #44 of 57
(5003 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2005
Posts: 74
|
In reply to: Which was exactly my point... as a nation we could put a bullet in our head and cease to exist and STILL those glaciers are going to melt. So some people say we need to do something for appearence's sake alone, and maybe we should.
I don't disagree that the US can't do much unilaterally to stem global emissions, even if we had the political and financial will. Global carbon-trading is the only way to go and it's only a half-measure. It is cheaper to reduce emissions in China than in the US, so a US coal plant could pay the Chinese plant to cut emissions. It doesn't really matter where we cut emissions, so long as we cut them someplace. And maybe that will buy us some time and $$ to work on the real issue - finding a way towards a post-carbon economy.
My head hurts - off to play some strip Yahtzee with my hot wife.
|
|
|
|
|
cintune
Mar 16, 2005, 1:09 AM
Post #45 of 57
(5003 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1293
|
In reply to: So there are no easy solutions.
Better solutions will only come along when the situation reaches an undeniable crisis point, which hasn't happened yet. And really there are no "solutions" at all, since we can't rebuild glaciers that took tens of thousands of years to grow. Once they're gone, they're gonna be gone for a while.
|
|
|
|
|
tradklime
Mar 16, 2005, 1:44 AM
Post #46 of 57
(5003 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2002
Posts: 1235
|
In reply to: Only an extremely small minority of climate scientists actually discount the effect of carbon emission on global warming.
In reply to: Average temperatures in the world have risen about 3 degrees in the last century, or about equal to what brought on the last Ice Age.
In reply to: We ARE having an impact - even the Bush White House recognizes this and is currently working on carbon trading programs with other nations top reduce overall emissions.
Well all nations are contributing to Greenhouse gases and we have no idea what the ultimate affect will be, and perhaps this is sufficient reason to do something about it. Perhaps we shouldn't fvck with something we don't understand.
In the mean while ponder the possibility that the glacial runoff water source for the Himalayan locals is in transition to be replaced by rainfall and the glaciers will be replaced by a rainforest.
|
|
|
|
|
tradklime
Mar 16, 2005, 1:45 AM
Post #47 of 57
(5003 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2002
Posts: 1235
|
In reply to: Only an extremely small minority of climate scientists actually discount the effect of carbon emission on global warming.
In reply to: Average temperatures in the world have risen about 3 degrees in the last century, or about equal to what brought on the last Ice Age.
In reply to: We ARE having an impact - even the Bush White House recognizes this and is currently working on carbon trading programs with other nations top reduce overall emissions.
Well all nations are contributing to Greenhouse gases and we have no idea what the ultimate affect will be, and perhaps this is sufficient reason to do something about it. Perhaps we shouldn't fvck with something we don't understand.
In the mean while ponder the possibility that the glacial runoff water source for the Himalayan locals is in transition to be replaced by rainfall and the glaciers will be replaced by a rainforest.
|
|
|
|
|
wright
Mar 16, 2005, 5:15 AM
Post #48 of 57
(5003 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 3, 2005
Posts: 54
|
In reply to: ...certain local climates could change in either direction by much more than the global average.
OK. But no local climate is static anyway. They all change. Deserts turn to forests or grasslands and so forth. It's the natural state of the world. Every computer model should show drastic changes in local climates regardless of what the global climate is doing.
In reply to: I'd be interested to see what you thought if you set your biases aside and looked at specifically which climateologists are alarmed and which arent. Look at their associations and at who's paying for the research. It begins to paint a less ambiguous picture.
First of all. You shouldn't ignore research just because the researcher is affiliated with someone you don't like. If you do, then you are the one who is biased. Good research can come from anywhere and any funding. At the same time you should always question everyone's research, even if it comes from someone you agree with. Most of your information probably comes from people who are either biased against big business or have something to gain from supporting the environmentalists. See, that river runs both ways.
Secondly, I set aside my biases a little over a year ago... and that's when I changed my mind on this issue. I still can't believe I voted for Gore because of his stance on the environment...
In reply to: However: even if the best answer we can find is one of total ambiguity...
If the answer is ambiguous, then we must not be having that big of an effect. So, let's spend our time and money dealing with problems that definitely exist. We can wait and deal with this once we have enough data to see what's really happening.
In reply to: we're not completely sure what will happen when we radically alter it's balance
Yes. When being the key word. We've been burning fossil fuels for about 200 years. There's probably only enough fossil fuels to last us another 100 years or so. We will run out of things to burn long before we have had made a radical change to the atmosphere.
Instead we need to focus on the right things for the right reasons. Burning more fossil fuels isn't bad because it's going to hurt the environment. It's bad because we might run out of fossil fuels before we have another source of energy. Fortunately, the economy will handle that problem. Eventually, it will be cheaper for energy companies to pursue renewable sources rather than the steadily decreasing supply of fossil fuels.
|
|
|
|
|
mack_north
Mar 16, 2005, 7:17 AM
Post #49 of 57
(5003 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2005
Posts: 74
|
In reply to: Any such conclusion is premature. It is quite common for beliefs to be based on the most plausible explaination, even if based on insufficient evidence. Many scientific theories have come and gone this exact way. The earth's climate is far too complex, and we have insufficient evidence to support any conclusion. All we have are observations, most of which have occurred in such a small time window as they are hardly relavent to "geologic time"
Ahhh, my fault for getting in a climate debate on a rock climbing website - let's just go back to debating the merits of the European death knot.
I don't disagree that in 10 years we'll know more about what is causing climatic change as well as have a better quiver of potential remedies. But it is interesting that the last increase of 3 degrees took place over a period of 5000 years and this one has taken a century. Which, just by pure coincidence, happens to be the only 100 years of industrialized, carbon-emitting economy in the history of the world.
Hey, global warming will benefit someone. It's interesting that the Russian government acknowledges both the damaging effects of greenhouse gasses and their own complicity in their creation (they create, through inefficient infrastructure, 17% of total global emissions.) But a warmer planet will allow them to drill in the Russian Arctic, which is not currently economically viable, and would be generally beneficial to their cash-strapped population. Which is why Moscow is uninterested in ringing any alarm bells.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Mar 16, 2005, 12:55 PM
Post #50 of 57
(5003 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
In reply to: seriuosly not trying to be low brow-we need to honestly ask ourselves where our motivations come from in terms of being able to criticize others without at the least conceding that we have an equal responsibility. i'm not advocating 'let he without sin cast the first stone", no, let the "sinful" cast that stone as hard as he can, just don't be dishonest about your "sin". i think (and i want to just say that this is somebody who has studied race, racism, classism, etc. extensively in an academic setting) that at root of a lot of comments made about what other countries or people should do is a certain ingrained hierarchy based on features or qualities believed, at some level, to be inherent, when they really aren't and don't actually even exist....just be careful. sorry if i came across as low-brow. but i won't apologize for the meat of my comment, that was intentional and right.
Altelis - that's disgusting. You accused Dingus of being racist, although he applies the same desire (to paraphrase - get those people off the floodplains) for the folks in Asia as he does for those in America. Then you tried to cover your tracks by saying, in essence, you know a racist when you see one, because you've studied the phenomenon in school. Get real. You want to improve society? You could start by apologizing to Dingus.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
