Did We fix Global Warming?

[sanjuro_ronin]

I just spent another hour shoveling snow, I spent an hour on Friday, on Saturday, 30 min on Sunday and now today.
**** YOU !
I am moving to Turks and Caicos !

[David Jamieson]

I just spent another hour shoveling snow, I spent an hour on Friday, on Saturday, 30 min on Sunday and now today.
**** YOU !
I am moving to Turks and Caicos !

I still a bit jarred that we never made those lush little islands provinces.
Man, talk about a blown chance at greatness.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I still a bit jarred that we never made those lush little islands provinces.
Man, talk about a blown chance at greatness.

Don't even get me started !!

[SimonM]

Dude, totally.

[David Jamieson]

well, it would probably be loaded with newfies looking for work within a week anyway. lol

no offense Newfs!

[SimonM]

I like newfoundlanders.

Who else can make crushing baby seal skulls seem somehow rebellious?

[David Jamieson]

Novies? They can do that too!

Do i get a pair of gloves for answering?

seriously though, if it wasn't for European buyers and European users, there would be no seal hunt.

they are attempting to hit at the trade in the wrong place.

If you end the demand, you end the supply.

Biggest buyers are the Northern European states.

Mind you, this isn't the first time an issue or problem has been tackled from the wrong end. It happens all the time in this age of deception, obfuscation and acceptance of outright lies.

what times we live in eh?

[SimonM]

I'm not opposed to hunting as long as it is done in a humane manner, is not conducted against an apex (or near-apex) predator and within quotas that do not harm the overall population of the species.

Seals are prey for bears and orcas, the hunt is controlled and, so as long as the animals are not subjected to cruel treatment prior to death I really don't care.

Furthermore I note the hypocracy of people who throw red paint at fur wearers while wearing leather shoes.

As I regularly DO wear leather I would be a hypocrite to oppose the fur industry on anything other than scarcity and environmental impact... so those are the standards I set.

First person I see wearing timberwolf pelt though gets a whole can of red paint...

Wolves are too vulnerable and too valuable for population maintenance of Deer and rodents to risk hunting. That goes double for great cats and bears.

And whaling is just plain wrong.

[Merryprankster]

People are right. Global Climate Change, despite being supported by a large amount of evidence and the vast majority of serious scientists who are studying the issue (which is called a scientific consensus, despite the handful of naysayers) is a myth. Just like the erosion of the ozone layer (also blamed on natural cycles back in the day), or evolution. *rolleyes*

A few doubters doesn't make it wrong. Climate change deniers would like you to think there is a raging debate. There is not. There is an extremely vocal minority of learned people who disagree with the consensus, and happen to be wrong in this case, and a large number of ideologues like Rush Limbaugh with very loud mouths.

The actual evidence is out there, and the correlation between rising greenhouse gasses and increases in average temperature is undeniable. I agree that we probably don't understand everything - but that, if anything, is reason to proceed with CAUTION and try and curb industry's impact rather than deny it has any effect.

What harm comes of improving emissions standards, trying to shift to non-fossil fuels, avoiding petroleum-based fertilizers when possible, and ending agribusiness subsidies in the United States at the very least? None that come immediately to mind. It's a prudent course of action.

[SimonM]

I liked the risk / benefits matrix I once saw on climate change


Position 1: Climate Change is real

Position 2: Climate change is not real

Action 1: Do nothing

Action 2: Enact legislation geared at reducing emmissions

P1 A1: Continued climate change, possible catrostrophy.
P2 A1: Nothing happens
P1 A2: Potentially curtail or reduce the impact of human-caused climate change.
P2 A2: Waste some money.

P1 A2 has a positive effect.
P1 A1 has a strong negative effect.
P2 A2 has a weak negative effect.
P2 A1 is neutral.

So with action 1 the choices are between a neutral outcome and a significant negative outcome. Action 2 provides choices between a positive outcome and a weak negative outcome.

The potential benefit of A2 thus outweighs the potential benefit of A1.
The potential risk of A1 outweighs the potential risk of A2.

Short of certainty A2 is thus the more logical choice.

Now balance of probability presently supports P1 more than P2, this makes the choice of A2 over A1 even clearer.

[Merryprankster]

SimonM;

That's exactly it. Even if you deny it exists or is at least significantly a man-made problem, where is the harm in trying to reduce emissions and fossil fuel use? The answer is that there is no harm. It harms nobody, and might help. And "Waste some money," is actually not quite right because we're actually talking about scientific R&D as a result. Going to the moon was pretty much a "waste of money," by that measure too, but the spinoff benefits mattered/matter quite a bit.

[BoulderDawg]

I laugh at all the people who say "Wow it's cold....Global warming must be over".

One has to look at the long term effect. For example I was watching a show about the Titantic last night and they talked about the Ice patrol. These are people in airplanes using sonar and radar who are looking for icebergs in the shipping lanes. Well, here lately those people appear to have a lot of time on their hands. In some recent years no icebergs have made it down to the shipping lanes.

[Eric Olson]

Agree with Boulder Dawg. You need to look at long term trends, not what happens in one location over a short time frame. The other thing is that weather patterns may shift as a result of global change so that some places actually get more severe weather (ie colder winters and hotter summers.)

There is wide scientific consensus that a) global warming is happening 2) it is a result of increased greenhouse gas emissions. The "scientists" who disagree with points 1 and 2 are either not climatologists (ie meteorologists,etc.) or are in the pocket of the oil industry.

What we don't know yet is what the impact will be. A warmer planet may actually benefit some regions (ie by improving agriculture) and be detrimental to others (ie drought). And sea level will rise but I think it is unclear just how much it will rise.

But I say we error on the side of caution with this issue.

EO

[SimonM]

And erring on the side of caution is precisely what I proposed.

[WinterPalm]

I liked the risk / benefits matrix I once saw on climate change


Position 1: Climate Change is real

Position 2: Climate change is not real

Action 1: Do nothing

Action 2: Enact legislation geared at reducing emmissions

P1 A1: Continued climate change, possible catrostrophy.
P2 A1: Nothing happens
P1 A2: Potentially curtail or reduce the impact of human-caused climate change.
P2 A2: Waste some money.

P1 A2 has a positive effect.
P1 A1 has a strong negative effect.
P2 A2 has a weak negative effect.
P2 A1 is neutral.

So with action 1 the choices are between a neutral outcome and a significant negative outcome. Action 2 provides choices between a positive outcome and a weak negative outcome.

The potential benefit of A2 thus outweighs the potential benefit of A1.
The potential risk of A1 outweighs the potential risk of A2.

Short of certainty A2 is thus the more logical choice.

Now balance of probability presently supports P1 more than P2, this makes the choice of A2 over A1 even clearer.

Ha ha! That's just Pascal's Wager updated for the science people.

Really, it's quite simple, at least more simple than that:

Do you want polluted smog in your air so you can't go outside some days of the year? Do you want food that tastes like garbage? Do you want your lakes filled with sludge and chemicals so you can't swim in them?

The pollution debate is simple: you'd have to be a loon to agree to say you want pollution and muck everywhere. Let's fix that and if GCC is related, it'll get fixed along the way.
The way I see it, the GCC issue is the best thing to happen to big business, because it's such a large issue dealing with so many variables, it's hard to say conclusively...so the doubt is what they get people with and it takes people's minds off the real issue: cleaning up our cities, our forests, our oceans...etc.