Global warming - let's settle this once and for all!

[Tachikaze]

I view the people who refuse to acknowledge the human-induced unnatural rate at which the Earth is heating up is akin to people who persistantly believed that the Earth was the center of the universe or even that the Earth was flat (and there are some who still do).

For the enlightened, which seems to be pretty universal outside the USA, there is little debate about global warming and its causes. It's only those who don't want to believe it that refuse to acknowledge it. They are bound by a world of comfortable fantasy.

It is so frustrating to see a nation with superb educational institutions and some extremely educated and creative people be dominated by ignorance.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

For the enlightened, which seems to be pretty universal outside the USA

You guys keep claiming this yet you have nothing to back it up. I can provide as many scientists who say its all BS as agree with you. The facts are we cant even predicted or control the weather for tommorow nevermind such a complicated system as our atmosphere. Imagine the polution if we still all used horses.

[Rodion Romanovich]

You guys keep claiming this yet you have nothing to back it up. I can provide as many scientists who say its all BS as agree with you. The facts are we cant even predicted or control the weather for tommorow nevermind such a complicated system as our atmosphere. Imagine the polution if we still all used horses.

Those who say it's BS that pollution results in increased temperatures are not saying pollution is harmless, unless they're bribed, fanatical dogmatics. I doubt you can mention that many scientists that completely disagree that the uncontrolled pollution is harmful.

What scientists disagree about isn't whether wrong atmosphere composition results in an increase of thermal energy inside the atmosphere, but how that energy will be distributed. The point is, if the temperature increases too much we'll need an absurdly uneven distribution of the heat in order to make as much of earth inhabitable for humans as is the case today. Similarly, a too great decrease in thermal energy on earth is dangerous for the very same reasons. We humans can control the average thermal energy, and past experience has shown us approximately how unevenly distributed the thermal energy in the atmosphere usually is, so we know which average earth temperatures to stay within.

The average temperature is controllable, but there are other factors which can increase or decrease temperature by up to 5-10 degrees. We therefore need to keep the average temperature well controlled, in order to have marginals for these events.

[Crazed Rabbit]

For the enlightened, which seems to be pretty universal outside the USA, there is little debate about global warming and its causes.

Hyu-uck! Why, you done gone and done nailed that ther nail wit dat ther hammer! We jus be a bunch o stopid rednecks!

Which is why, I suppose, America is reducing emissions, whereas Europe is not.

Huh. For all their 'enlightened' thought, they aren't much good at getting results.

Crazed Rabbit

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Huh. For all their 'enlightened' thought, they aren't much good at getting results.

Dont you realise its all americas fault?

[thrashaholic]

People who preach global warming and that it's all our fault and that it'll kill us all is just a modern version of the flaggellant doomsayer of days past who preached precisely the same thing except that they threw god in the equation.

"The end is nigh! You have all sinned! Mend your ways before it's troo late!"

The mantra is exactly the same, and their argument in both cases has precisely the same validity, non-whatsoever. Both are founded in intangible forces and both use whatever happens now (even if it contradicts what they were saying yesterday) as 'solid proof' for their message of self-inflicted doom. An example:

A couple of years ago, here in Britain, while we were having some of the hottest summers we'd had in a while, we were being bombarded by information on the news how global warming was going to make Britain like a mediterranean country in only a couple of decades. The telly programmes got lots of scientists to come on and go: "hmmmmm, yes", and environMENTALists to come on and go: "capitalism and our excessive life-styles are to blame, everyone must grow a beard and wear sandals, live in a mud hut or up a tree and whip themselves until mother-earth is happy again!" (well not exactly that, but near enough), and they interviewed lots of stupid people who believed all this, and everyone was convinced and terrified because this scientist had said so in the paper....

Recently though, now that we've been haviong some colder weather, global warming is to blame. The telly gets the same people on, who say exactly the same thing, and everyone had forgot that we were going to become a mediterranean country. Now we were going to become like Russia or something. *gasp* And everyone was terrified.

Not only is it monumentally stupid, it's also mid-numbingly boring.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a nice clean atmosphere, but I really don't buy into this "our planet will be like Venus in 5 minutes if we don't abolish McDonalds now!" stuff, because that's what it is essentially leftoids trying to find another angle from which they can attack global capitalism. It's got precious little to do with the weather: if they can say that capitalism's destroying the planet, then the unwashed masses will believe them.

In summary, what a load of bollocks.

[Rodion Romanovich]

People who preach global warming and that it's all our fault and that it'll kill us all is just a modern version of the flaggellant doomsayer of days past who preached precisely the same thing except that they threw god in the equation.

"The end is nigh! You have all sinned! Mend your ways before it's troo late!"

The mantra is exactly the same, and their argument in both cases has precisely the same validity, non-whatsoever.

Well, the black death was very much caused by human lifestyle. Free trade and crowded city life caused it to spread quickly. Bad sewage conditions made it lovely for the rats, who indirectly carried the plague. The flagellants didn't know the cause, but they were actually right in that humans had caused it. Later improvements of conditions that created the plague successfully destroyed it: better sewage, Poland for instance cut off all trade connections and that way avoided getting the plague, and better hygiene overall in cities led to less spreading despite fairly heavily crowded cities.

Finally, global warming is a bigger threat to capitalism than actions against it are. Imagine climate refugees from the equatorial regions. A majority of all humans live around the equator. When that region becomes uninhabitable, you'll be swarmed by refugees. That will certainly create an economical chaos much worse than that caused by a few, minor restrictions of the free trade.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Those who say it's BS that pollution results in increased temperatures are not saying pollution is harmless, unless they're bribed, fanatical dogmatics. I doubt you can mention that many scientists that completely disagree that the uncontrolled pollution is harmful.

And you wont find me or any oter conservative here claiming that either.

We humans can control the average thermal energy

Now thats total BS. We cant even make it rain. When the next Ice Age approaches I want to know how your going to turn the heat back up.

What scientists disagree about isn't whether wrong atmosphere composition results in an increase of thermal energy inside the atmosphere, but how that energy will be distributed.

What scientists disagree about is whats causing it.

The average temperature is controllable,

Oh please my stomachs hurting. Stop with the jokes.

Finally, global warming is a bigger threat to capitalism than actions against it are. Imagine climate refugees from the equatorial regions. A majority of all humans live around the equator. When that region becomes uninhabitable, you'll be swarmed by refugees.

Its gonna happen over and over and theres not a damned thing that you can do about it. Man is not god and its time some of you learned that.

[Ja'chyra]

Its gonna happen over and over and theres not a damned thing that you can do about it. Man is not god and its time some of you learned that.

It's also time man stopped raping this planet, maybe we'll finally figure that out when we're dead.

[Rodion Romanovich]

We humans can control the average thermal energy

Now thats total BS. We cant even make it rain. When the next Ice Age approaches I want to know how your going to turn the heat back up. [...] Oh please my stomachs hurting. Stop with the jokes.

Well, here are some more jokes:
- we can control the flow in rivers by using ponds!
- we can make dry desert areas wet so we can grow things there, by water pipe irrigation
- we can create vaccines that prevent people from catching diseases
- we can create pennicilline that cures most disease caused by bacteria

it's called science

[Husar]

Which is why, I suppose, America is reducing emissions, whereas Europe is not.

Very funny, and probably the reason you all drive around with 20litre pickups.

[Ironside]

Hyu-uck! Why, you done gone and done nailed that ther nail wit dat ther hammer! We jus be a bunch o stopid rednecks!

Which is why, I suppose, America is reducing emissions, whereas Europe is not.

Huh. For all their 'enlightened' thought, they aren't much good at getting results.

Crazed Rabbit

So your economy have shrunken in recent time?

And any link to that study? If it's recent it would be interesting to compare that to the prices on gasoline for the US.

[doc_bean]

For the enlightened, which seems to be pretty universal outside the USA,

Please, there are many people outside of the US who don't subscribe to the popular theory of global warming caused by CO2 emmissions.

Which is why, I suppose, America is reducing emissions, whereas Europe is not.

Now, i've already explaiend this somewhere else, we started reducing emmissions earlier and have hit a plateau.

Those who say it's BS that pollution results in increased temperatures are not saying pollution is harmless, unless they're bribed, fanatical dogmatics. I doubt you can mention that many scientists that completely disagree that the uncontrolled pollution is harmful.

That's a completely different issue. CO2 isn't even traditionally thought of as pollution afaik.

[Rodion Romanovich]

That's a completely different issue. CO2 isn't even traditionally thought of as pollution afaik.

That's why I said pollution as a general concept, and not CO2 only. We have CH4, CO, CO2, N2O, NO2, SO2, SF6 (really dangerous thing), for instance.

N2O is probably the most interesting thing. It's also known as laughing gas, which is why some people just lean back and laugh while the other polluted chemicals are destroying earth.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

there is a simple mathmatical principle that can be applied to this whole situation to decide what the best course of action is simply balance out the resulst of taking either action.

there are two main possibilitys about global warming, either we are right or we are wrong, if we lower emmisions and put funding into renewable energy sources then there are two possible results

1. we are wrong the world is compleatly unaffected by the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and is in fact being heated by the sun rather then man, if this is the case then we would have spent a lot of money lowering emmisions and developing renewable resourses but will be less reliant on fast depleating fossil fuel resourses and will have cleaner air due to less polution, this would slightly balance out the cost aspect and so would be quite good.

2. we are right and manage to slow down and eventually stop global warming and possible disaster is averted, as a bonus we are also less relient on fossil fuels.

If we do nothing:

1. we are right global warming is not happening and the earth is actually being heated up by the sun. money is saved by companys and the economy is more healthy, untill oil and other fossil fuel reserves run out which will probably cause just as big a problem if not more so then emmision restrictions

2. we are wrong, the earth heats up, there are thousands of refuges that flood the cooler parts of the world at the same time as they are struggleing to adapt to the lact of fossil fuels.

In conclusion in my opinion we should try and lower emmisions and should develop renewable energy resources as this is the option that brings the best results.

[doc_bean]

In conclusion in my opinion we should try and lower emmisions and should develop renewable energy resources as this is the option that brings the best results.

No one is really argueing this, the problem is, to what level should we lower emissions, at what cost ? How much do we invest in renewable energy ?

It's an economics problem really.

[Rodion Romanovich]

@Byzantine Mercenary: Well said!

@doc_bean: "No one is really arguing this"
Ok, that's nice to hear. I was a little worried this thread would turn too political, and include heavy for and against American-bashing arguments etc. While it's true the USA refuses to take part in most deals for limiting pollution, it's also true that the pollution rights the Kyoto protocol suggested for the USA was a little tougher than for other countries, which was unfair. It's a two-edged sword.

I was mainly intending a discussion about the scientific parts of it, a discussion about how dangerous the problem was. But now it's turned political, I'll respond to the political parts too (building on from some of what Byzantine Mercenary said but focusing on another part):

If we don't lower emissions until the last minute, we get a shock, which will shake the market and create economical chaos worse than the 1930ies depression.

If we don't lower emissions until it's too late, we're doomed.

If we lower emissions gradually, by passing laws on which pollution levels certain products may have, and give the market a hint some years in advance as to how these levels will develop, we create a safe, stabile market which will slowly adapt itself to the conditions reality imposes.

It's claimed that if we'd put as much money into solar power as we're every year giving to the coal mines for them to carry on their work, we'd have developed a solar energy able to replace most of the fossile fuels in 10 years, for instance. So the cost of developing solar energy isn't really a problem. The one problem is that economists and politicans underestimate how dangerous the problem is.

[doc_bean]

@doc_bean: "No one is really arguing this"
Ok, that's nice to hear. I was a little worried this thread would turn too political, and include heavy for and against American-bashing arguments etc.

This IS the backroom, someone is bound to take a stance like that, if only to see if they can defend it. But few if any people actually involved in the real life pollution/emission/green house debate will claim that reducing pollution/emission is not better than not doing that (if the costs were the same).

While it's true the USA refuses to take part in most deals for limiting pollution, it's also true that the pollution rights the Kyoto protocol suggested for the USA was a little tougher than for other countries, which was unfair. It's a two-edged sword.

A lot of countries want a per capita regulation, is it surprising then that the Us refuses to take part ? It's one of the thinnest populated countries in the world.

I was mainly intending a discussion about the scientific parts of it, a discussion about how dangerous the problem was.

Hard to say, cuurent theory seems to involve a 'turning' point at which the climate of earth will inreversibily change about 100 years in the future. What will happen after the turning point seems to be pretty unclear, although it probably isn't good.

If we don't lower emissions until the last minute, we get a shock, which will shake the market and create economical chaos worse than the 1930ies depression.

The last point is at least 50years into the future, even by optimistic estimates our oil supplies won't let us rely on fossil fuels that long in the same way we do now.

If we don't lower emissions until it's too late, we're doomed.

That's assuming it ever gets to be 'too late'.

If we lower emissions gradually, by passing laws on which pollution levels certain products may have, and give the market a hint some years in advance as to how these levels will develop, we create a safe, stabile market which will slowly adapt itself to the conditions reality imposes.

Funny thin is, it isn't Kyoto that is driving the market away from 'polluting' tech. It's the volatility of the oil price, the high energy prices and, for countries, the need to have some control over the energy market themselves.

It's claimed that if we'd put as much money into solar power as we're every year giving to the coal mines for them to carry on their work, we'd have developed a solar energy able to replace most of the fossile fuels in 10 years, for instance. So the cost of developing solar energy isn't really a problem. The one problem is that economists and politicans underestimate how dangerous the problem is.

Claimed...

Currently, for households in belgium, the payback term for photovoltaic cells if they weren't subsidized would be 60 years (assuming stable energy prices). Photovoltaic cells last about 30years...

Alternative energy isn't magic, it has its own specific costs and disadvantages. The oil industry, rich and powerful as it may be, isn't the only thing keeping us using oil. Oil and gas have simply been the most practical and cost-efficient source of energy in the last 50years (along with nuclear power).