Global Warming opinions

Around here it is taken as fact, but I generally feel a weird disconnect when it is portrayed in american media. Is it generally considered false among the general american population?

At first I believed in global warming, and I constantly lived in fear of one day the ice caps will collapse and flood the world and what not. But non of that has happened. So far global warming has been exaggerated and taken out of context for public support and for political motives by people who use it to gain support.

I believe it's been re-branded "Climate Change" because the weather tends to be much more complicated than people expect. Anyway, in America it's a polarizing issue that's been far too closely linked to politics for many people to look at objectively. Facts take backseat to agendas, unfortunately.

Well, there is evidence that it was even warmer than it is now during the time of the dinosaurs, so I just say it's a natural cycle.

The climate changes all the time. This is true. However, that's not exactly a good thing. Major climate shifts are accompanied by mass extinctions. And most of them happen much much slower than we see happening now. The kind of climate change that happened since the industrial revolution normally happens over millions of years, not a few centuries.

IE: You may note that the dinosaurs are dead now.

edited 2nd May '11 4:19:18 AM by Clarste

I would rather assume climate change is real, take steps to limit our effects on the environment, and then have climate change proven false, than assume it's not real and be proven wrong when the natural world collapses around our ears.

The consequences for a false positive are so much worse than those of a false negative, you know?

See here.

It's not just a cycle. Nor is it exaggerated, except in The Day After Tomorrow.

Dumping so much crap into the atmosphere simply can't be expected to have no effect.

Also, it's already happening, and has been happening for years.

If the warming is our fault, we can reduce it, at an economic cost. If the warming isn't our fault, we're kinda screwed anyways. Why not play the odds?

Unless the graphs I've read have been completely fabricated, the global mean temperature HAS risen over the last 100 years. However, I am skeptical as to the degree to which this has been caused by human actions, more skeptical as to whether modern science knows enough about it to make useful predictions as to how it will continue, and even more skeptical as to whether the current proposed countermeasures will be effective enough to be worth the cost.

In other words, there are a number of possible situations:

A: Global warming is human-caused, will continue indefinitely if nothing is done, and can be effectively combatted by investing in "green" technology.

B: Global warming is human-caused, but will not continue to worsen under current conditions.

C: Global warming is human-caused, and will continue to worsen, but cannot be stopped at this point.

D: Global warming is not human-caused, and will self-correct over time.

E: Global warming is not human-caused, but will not self-correct in time to avoid deadly damage to humans unless humans intervene.

F: Global warming is not human-caused, will not self-correct, and cannot be stopped.

Of all of these, only in situation "A" will it help us to listen to the likes of Al Gore. In all other situations we're better off investing in other things.

edited 2nd May '11 7:05:25 AM by EdwardsGrizzly

It's too late to prevent, but it can be mitigated. Option C doesn't exclude option A.

neither of those statements are necessarily true. Even if it's our fault, it may be too late to stop it. Even if it's not our fault, it may be possible to stop it. And in either case the expected costs of stopping it may be greater than the expected costs of allowing it to continue. Also, in either case, the best way to stop it may not be the same as the politically attractive "green" technology.

For example: incandescent light bulbs: new regulation passed here in the US has effectively banned their production (certain states may still overturn it within their boundaries, but in that case exporting them would be illegal). The rationale for this was that they are inefficient compared to other types. However, the main economical alternative, compact fluorescents, have their own environmental impact due to their containing mercury. This will have a definite, debiliating effect on our streams and rivers when the bulbs are improperly disposed of, and poses a danger to human health if they are broken. On the other hand, incandescent bulbs have none of these drawbacks, only a perceived contribution to global warming. If in fact they have no significant effect, then we have made a very bad deal.

edited 2nd May '11 7:17:42 AM by EdwardsGrizzly

But at that point perhaps the best option would be to build seawalls around New York, and otherwise learn to live with higher temperatures, rather than bleed out our resources on a doomed battle.

I'd be reluctant to commit resources entirely to one option without a much better picture of the potential costs and benefits. I don't think we have a very good picture at all right now.

edited 2nd May '11 7:20:31 AM by EdwardsGrizzly

David Attenborough has an excellent documentary depicting exactly why Man has influence in global warming.

Then again, the amount of angry death threats he's received lately for not acknowledging God in his docs probably signifies the end of his popularity.

^^The most economical way to reduce the effects of climate change is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

I don't see what there is to "believe" when it comes to science. It's not a fair discussion when it is "scientists of the world involved in climate studies" vs "industrial leaders who don't want to take an economic hit". I also don't see why it is true we must take any (overall) economic hit. It's matter of shifting market priorities, best suited by using a carbon text to remove externalities from industries that don't charge the correct price because they are subsidised by taxpayers.

Take for example long distance foods that take a lot of gasoline to deliver. If we included a carbon tax on it, would it cost more than local foods? If it does, it causes more pollution and you can shift more to local foods. As a benefit you can feel all nationalist for supporting your local agricultural industry and small time farmers.

Then you might complain that carbon tax is just another tax but the fact of the matter is, whether you have a carbon tax or not, you still have to pay real tax dollars into it. When Exxon Mobil dumps toxins into a lake, drills a giant hole in the ground and so on, they receive tax dollars or the government wholly assumes responsibility for cleaning up the environmental mess. So in the end, you've been slapped with a carbon tax anyway.

edited 2nd May '11 8:21:58 AM by breadloaf

^^ I'm just doubtful as to whether that is true. I want to see predictions actually happening before I trust scientific claims, otherwise they're no different from the quack fringe.

The scientists may have a clearer picture, but all that filters down to a layman like me is a lot of political hype.

^^ If we could be confident of a fairly accurate measure of the costs of carbon externalities, then that'd be a good solution.

The cost is what the government would normally pay to clean it up. In addition, you keep upping the cost after that to affect the market price of goods that pollute more until consumers respond.

Pollution is waste and the more efficiently we build anything, the less pollution there is in our environment. Even if climate change were not a concern, unless you love having your air choked with emissions and your water clogged with chemicals, I really don't see why we wouldn't tackle pollution anyways.

edited 2nd May '11 9:14:25 AM by breadloaf

^ That's not the real cost of pollution. The real cost is the loss of quality of life inflicted on other people. For example, the cost for the government to rebuild the mountains that get blasted into oblivion by coal miners would be astronomical, but the real cost is not that, it's the loss to the people who would otherwise have enjoyed the beauty of those mountains, which, while considerable, is much lower.

There's a lot of air and water out there, so up to a point I'd rather have some of it polluted so I can enjoy the rest more easily. it's a mistake to think that polluting is never the most beneficial course of action. Pollution is a cost which must be paid if certain benefits are gained. if the benefits outweigh the costs, then it's the wisest course.

edited 2nd May '11 9:58:45 AM by EdwardsGrizzly

OTOH, there are costs which are much higher, especially on the individual scale.

"Meh"

I don't doubt it's occurring, I just doubt that we have had as much an impact on it as some claim.

But I'm utterly apathetic on the issue, really. I just don't give a damn.

^ That's pretty much a tautology when "some" includes nonsense like The Day After Tomorrow.