Why is Global Warming still a political issue?

[Shellhead]

There is an overwhelming consensus within the scientific community regarding global warming. Wrecking the climate of the only planet that we live on is clearly a bad idea. And even economic reasons for undermining efforts to combat global warming seem short-sighted at best, given the enormous costs that will be incurred if coastal regions become flooded around the world. And if climate changes reduce crop yields significantly, there will be widespread famine.

And yet global warming is still treated as a political issue by some. Why? What possible sane reason could there be for gambling with the future of our planet? Are some people so greedy that they are willing to kill us all for money?

[Kid Omega]

Are some people so greedy that they are willing to kill us all for money?

Short answer?

Yes.

Although, to date, they seem to be content just killing soldiers and Iraqi civilians, publicly telling senators to "fuck off" when asked about their profiteering, and drunkenly shooting their friends in the face.


Eeeeeeeeeevil....

[cactusmaac]

There's questions outstanding regarding associated costs, benefits and trade-offs.

[Merey]

There's always going to be contradictory voices, especially when it comes to solutions and you have guys like Bjorn Lomborg (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14285997) "arguing that global warming is not so important that tens of billions of dollars should be spent trying to prevent it." He believes we'd get more bang for a buck if we spent that money on other international issues like the AIDS crisis in Africa.

[cactusmaac]

Well, if I were African, it would be hard to argue with that.

[king mob]

There's always going to be contradictory voices, especially when it comes to solutions and you have guys like Bjorn Lomborg (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14285997) "arguing that global warming is not so important that tens of billions of dollars should be spent trying to prevent it." He believes we'd get more bang for a buck if we spent that money on other international issues like the AIDS crisis in Africa.

Which is fine if you assume that nobody is spending much money or attention on the AIDS crisis, or assume that global warming isn't affecting Africa (or the world) which is clearly bollocks.

[Nick Soapdish]

Global warming isn't expected to do Africa any favors though. It's expected to (and seems to be already) accelerating the drying out the Sahel, causing the expansion of the Sahara.

[MushMouth]

And yet global warming is still treated as a political issue by some. Why? What possible sane reason could there be for gambling with the future of our planet? Are some people so greedy that they are willing to kill us all for money?

Some, yes. But the larger problem is that ideologues are able to convince themselves that there is no such thing as global warming. Like creationists who deny evolution not because they find the evidence lacking but because they fear its implications, global warming denialists are often "free market" fundamentalists who fear the implications of global warming means market regulations.

Why is this still a political issue? Because truth has turned into a partisan issue. And the noise machine doesn't help.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/

Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress."

[darkhanamaru]

There is an overwhelming consensus within the scientific community regarding global warming. Wrecking the climate of the only planet that we live on is clearly a bad idea. And even economic reasons for undermining efforts to combat global warming seem short-sighted at best, given the enormous costs that will be incurred if coastal regions become flooded around the world. And if climate changes reduce crop yields significantly, there will be widespread famine.

And yet global warming is still treated as a political issue by some. Why? What possible sane reason could there be for gambling with the future of our planet? Are some people so greedy that they are willing to kill us all for money?

One everything is political for everything can be turned into an issue about power and how we choose to pursue the global warming will dictate how a large number of resources will be allocated for a long time.

Two the fact of the matter is many people are ignorant of science and are unaware of how serious the problem is being projected to be.

Three many people STILL feel people and their immediate needs come before the environment and that the issues aren't linked. So for example if it a question of forcing a company to raise wages or use that money to protect the environment some on the left feel it is still better to raise wages. The environment is still seen as an issue that the rich and the industrialised can only afford.

[Shostie]

And yet global warming is still treated as a political issue by some. Why? What possible sane reason could there be for gambling with the future of our planet? Are some people so greedy that they are willing to kill us all for money?

The only way major policy change will be implemented is via government. That's why it's a political issue.

[king mob]

Maps are having to be redrawn as global warming and man’s use of rivers alter the shape of countries and continents around the world.

More changes than ever before are being recorded by cartographers as they attempt to keep track of the impact people have on the environment.

In the four years since the last edition of The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World map-makers have had to redraw coastlines, lakes and the routes of rivers.

Construction of new homes and industrial plants is also having a visible effect on the world as towns and cities expand to concrete over the countryside.

Las Vegas in the United States has undergone striking changes and urbanisation in Africa and Asia is advancing rapidly. Next year is forecast to be the first in history in which more people live in urban areas than in the country.

Inland lakes and seas have seen some of the biggest changes as water from rivers is diverted to feed crops and urban populations.

Lake Chad in Africa has shrunk 95 per cent since 1967 and the Aral Sea in Central Asia has contracted by 75 per cent in 40 years. Similarly, the Dead Sea is 82 feet (25 metres) lower today than it was 50 years ago.

So much water is extracted from the Yellow River in China that it can dry out so much in the summer that it fails to reach the sea, a situation exacerbated by global warming. Sediment levels have changed so radically that it has changed the shape of the coastline where the river meets the sea.

In Bangladesh the effects of climate change, which is said to have contributed to sea level rises and caused heavier monsoons, have eaten away at the low-lying coast.

“We can literally see environmental disasters unfolding before our eyes,” said Mick Ashworth, editor-in-chief of the atlas.

He said many of the revisions to the 12th edition of the atlas, published today by Collins, are a result of cartographers being “more aware of large scale environmental changes”, including global warming.

“It’s a question of keeping on top of the changes,” he said. “Awareness of the changes is definitely increasing.”

While many of the current revisions are a result of better information about what has taken place, cartographers expect atlases in the future to require considerable changes from sea level rises caused by global warming.

In the Pacific Ocean the Marshall Islands, Tokelau, Tuvalu and Vauata are among the areas of land expected to vanish as sea levels rise, as are the Maldives in the Indian Ocean.

A new feature of the atlas is the identification of ghost towns, which are marked on the maps as “abandoned”.

Among these are Plymouth in Montserrat, which was abandoned because of volcanic eruptions from 1995-7. Others are Bodie in the US, one of the Californian goldrush settlements, and Kolmanskop in Namibia, a diamond mining town.

Cartographers are keeping a close on on Shishmaref in Alaska because it is forecast to become the first US settlement abandoned because of the impacts of climate change. The break-up of sea ice has left the village more exposed to storms and the sea is advancing at a rate of ten feet (3m) a year.






http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2378308.ece

[Sonicjuce]

The thing about global warming as it was taught to me at a major state university by an extremely liberal professor is that it is still not certain humans have caused global warming. The earth as a whole has always gone in a cyclical manner of cooling and heating. He always said "Correlation does not equal causation."

The evidence does make it really look like humans are the cause of global warming. I think until it is proved that we are it is hard for politicians to consider a program that could cost the US millions. That was the whole problem with the Kyoto (spelling?) protocol. The countries that signed it didn't have as much to worry about as the ones that didn't.

I think until it can be shown beyond a reason of a doubt that humans are the sole cause it will remain a political issue. I know that Gore pretty much stated it was, but his video was a a "tad bit" one sided.

[king mob]

The thing about global warming as it was taught to me at a major state university by an extremely liberal professor is that it is still not certain humans have caused global warming. The earth as a whole has always gone in a cyclical manner of cooling and heating. He always said "Correlation does not equal causation."

The evidence does make it really look like humans are the cause of global warming. I think until it is proved that we are it is hard for politicians to consider a program that could cost the US millions. That was the whole problem with the Kyoto (spelling?) protocol. The countries that signed it didn't have as much to worry about as the ones that didn't.

I think until it can be shown beyond a reason of a doubt that humans are the sole cause it will remain a political issue. I know that Gore pretty much stated it was, but his video was a a "tad bit" one sided.



Sigh.

I would suggest searching for one of the many global warming threads to find out why you're talking nonsense.

[Shellhead]

The thing about global warming as it was taught to me at a major state university by an extremely liberal professor is that it is still not certain humans have caused global warming. The earth as a whole has always gone in a cyclical manner of cooling and heating. He always said "Correlation does not equal causation."

The evidence does make it really look like humans are the cause of global warming. I think until it is proved that we are it is hard for politicians to consider a program that could cost the US millions. That was the whole problem with the Kyoto (spelling?) protocol. The countries that signed it didn't have as much to worry about as the ones that didn't.

I think until it can be shown beyond a reason of a doubt that humans are the sole cause it will remain a political issue. I know that Gore pretty much stated it was, but his video was a a "tad bit" one sided.

The uncertainty about humans causing global warming looks like an obvious stall tactic to me. Sure, it's remotely possible that God or some magical fairies have decided to cause global warming, but the obvious and extremely likely cause would be the human race. In the last 150 years, our population has grown tremendously, and the impact of our technology has also increased immensely during that time period. Occam's Razor should be wielded vigorously when the fate of mankind is potentially at risk.

As for the Kyoto protocol, I think the only two major countries that declined to ratify it are Australia and the United States. I do agree that some of the major countries that did sign it have less to sacrifice than the U.S.

To me, the economic calculations seem pretty obvious, even when allowing some considerable leeway in either direction. Our ability to sustain ourselves as a species is reliant on our access to food, drinkable water, and breathable air. Of these, the food is the biggest risk in the event of global warming, because crop yields are so sensitive to weather conditions. Is it more important to drive SUVs, or to eat food? More important to churn out lots of consumer goods from pollution-generating factories, or to eat food? And if there is widespread flooding in coastal regions, a disproportionately huge segment of the population of this planet will be displaced, causing massive conflict over a decreasing amount of real estate. These are gigantic costs to contemplate, and our current standard of living isn't worth these risks.

[Sonicjuce]

Sigh.

I would suggest searching for one of the many global warming threads to find out why you're talking nonsense.

Considering the entirety of my post was "Why Global Warming is still a political issue" I don't know how it was nonsense. Maybe you don't agree with it, and I never said I did. That is why I believe it to be a political issue though.

[Hulkamaniac]

It's a political issue due to the fact that it would cost corporations that pay the coffers of politicians tons of money to actually do something about it. As long as there is a vested interest for corporations to fight federal and international law that would cost them revenue as a trade off to help the world in regards to global warming and pollution in general it will always be a political issue. If we were to take that power of monetary influence away from the process then maybe something can happen.

[Jared_Humpherys]

There's always going to be contradictory voices, especially when it comes to solutions and you have guys like Bjorn Lomborg (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14285997) "arguing that global warming is not so important that tens of billions of dollars should be spent trying to prevent it." He believes we'd get more bang for a buck if we spent that money on other international issues like the AIDS crisis in Africa.

Actually, from what I heard in an interview with Bjorn today on NPR, what he'd like to see is the money going to developing better, more efficient future technologies. Having better tech, he says, will make fighting it easier and more cost-effective.

I don't really agree with this, but that is the point he was making on the radio today.

[Shellhead]

It's a political issue due to the fact that it would cost corporations that pay the coffers of politicians tons of money to actually do something about it. As long as there is a vested interest for corporations to fight federal and international law that would cost them revenue as a trade off to help the world in regards to global warming and pollution in general it will always be a political issue. If we were to take that power of monetary influence away from the process then maybe something can happen.

Publicly-traded corporations aren't usually run by people who do big-picture, long-term planning. And their shareholders tend to skew older, so there is limited interest in what the world will be like, say, 30 years from now. They tend to focus on now and the next quarter, and maybe next year. So they are unprepared to analyze the real impact of global warming. In otherwards, if a huge number of customers lose their homes due to coastal flooding, won't that hurt profits in a major way? If people are spending lots of money for essentials like food, won't that cut into sales of pretty much anything inedible?

[Merey]

Actually, from what I heard in an interview with Bjorn today on NPR, what he'd like to see is the money going to developing better, more efficient future technologies. Having better tech, he says, will make fighting it easier and more cost-effective.

I don't really agree with this, but that is the point he was making on the radio today.

The interview, which I also heard this morning, is linked on the page I posted. Yes, that's part of his argument, but crux of his argument is that he's advocating, being that he's an economist, for the best economical solution in the long-run and not necessarily the most immediate scientifically effective one.

[Nick Soapdish]

The thing about global warming as it was taught to me at a major state university by an extremely liberal professor is that it is still not certain humans have caused global warming. The earth as a whole has always gone in a cyclical manner of cooling and heating. He always said "Correlation does not equal causation."

The evidence does make it really look like humans are the cause of global warming. I think until it is proved that we are it is hard for politicians to consider a program that could cost the US millions. That was the whole problem with the Kyoto (spelling?) protocol. The countries that signed it didn't have as much to worry about as the ones that didn't.

I think until it can be shown beyond a reason of a doubt that humans are the sole cause it will remain a political issue. I know that Gore pretty much stated it was, but his video was a a "tad bit" one sided.

It won't ever be shown beyond a shadow of a doubt. Pretty much all the scientists in the field came close to agreeing that it was 99% likely that it was caused by humans for the IPCC report. But even when they do, there are still going to be crackpots like Calder that disbelieve and fix the evidence so that it fits their conclusions.

But it won't ever be Proved enough for the skeptics. At least not until long after it's too late to do anything about it.

Edit: And people aren't the sole cause of global warming. Current studies suggest that up to 30% of it could be natural.

[Paul McEnery]

The interview, which I also heard this morning, is linked on the page I posted. Yes, that's part of his argument, but crux of his argument is that he's advocating, being that he's an economist, for the best economical solution in the long-run and not necessarily the most immediate scientifically effective one.

Being that he's a corrupt shitbag liar, I'd sooner run him over with a truck than give him five more seconds of my attention.

[Shellhead]

It won't ever be shown beyond a shadow of a doubt. Pretty much all the scientists in the field came close to agreeing that it was 99% likely that it was caused by humans for the IPCC report. But even when they do, there are still going to be crackpots like Calder that disbelieve and fix the evidence so that it fits their conclusions.

But it won't ever be Proved enough for the skeptics. At least not until long after it's too late to do anything about it.


Good point. The Flat Earth Society is still around after all these years. And they still think that the Apollo lunar landings were faked.

[Merey]

Being that he's a corrupt shitbag liar, I'd sooner run him over with a truck than give him five more seconds of my attention.

Agreed. My point being, in response to the original post, is that it's people like him that garner too much attention by trying their damnedest to muddle a issue often for their own glory.

[Merey]

And they still think that the Apollo lunar landings were faked.

According to this week's Real Time with Bill Maher, so does Mos Def.

[Black Atom]

Big corporations openly fight regulations that have a direct, tangible link to the health and safety of their consumers and employees in order to keep their revenues up. In turn, I don't see them suddenly spending money on a cause that has, to them, an intangible affect on the world at large. If they could go back to dumping toxic waste in rivers, they'd do it in a heatbeat.

[Charles RB]

Since I live in a country that would be up Shit Creek if global warming raises the sea level, I say global warming is still a political issue because a lot of people suck.

[Paul McEnery]

Agreed. My point being, in response to the original post, is that it's people like him that garner too much attention by trying their damnedest to muddle a issue often for their own glory.

Oh, I'd point the finger at a few more people.

Like any media channel that gives the fucker any attention at all.

I want to know what he was doing on NPR in the first place. And in the second place, I want to know why the journalist "responsible" didn't take the trouble to refute everything he said.

Not that I heard the show at all. I just know how crap NPR is.

[titanfan]

There is an overwhelming consensus within the scientific community regarding global warming. Wrecking the climate of the only planet that we live on is clearly a bad idea. And even economic reasons for undermining efforts to combat global warming seem short-sighted at best, given the enormous costs that will be incurred if coastal regions become flooded around the world. And if climate changes reduce crop yields significantly, there will be widespread famine.

And yet global warming is still treated as a political issue by some. Why? What possible sane reason could there be for gambling with the future of our planet? Are some people so greedy that they are willing to kill us all for money?

It's a political issue because there is disagreement on *how* to fix the problem, not that the problem exists. You can say the same thing on many issues--there is agreement that the problem exists--but disagreements as to the best way to fix it.

[Shellhead]

Since I live in a country that would be up Shit Creek if global warming raises the sea level, I say global warming is still a political issue because a lot of people suck.

Good point about the UK. Despite their failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, I can't imagine that Australians are going to be happy about re-locating to the Outback when their cities are flooded. Unless maybe they are looking forward to re-enacting those Mad Max movies. Likewise, what are U.S. politicians going to do when Foggy Bottom ends up underwater? Or, for that matter, New York City, Miami, Houston, Los Angeles, Seattle, and of course, New Orleans?

[Charles RB]

Good point about the UK. Despite their failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, I can't imagine that Australians are going to be happy about re-locating to the Outback when their cities are flooded.

As I recall, the big drought and flooding earlier this year screwed up the rural and outback towns and weren't much of a picnic in the cities either. So they'd be doubly screwed. There'd probably be a mass of immigration - which would be interesting, just to see the British National Party and similar groups rant about how these English-speaking history-sharing predominantly-white Commonwealth guys will undermine British culture.

Likewise, what are U.S. politicians going to do when Foggy Bottom ends up underwater? Or, for that matter, New York City, Miami, Houston, Los Angeles, Seattle, and of course, New Orleans?

Probably hope they're not representing those constituents.

[Kid Omega]

Not that I heard the show at all.

BIG SURPRISE THERE

[Paul McEnery]

BIG SURPRISE THERE

I imagine you've heard of the hypothetico-deductive method.

I've heard all of the big hitters for NPR. None of them have ever challenged whether what their guests say is truthful or not. Their method is simply to allow their guests to speak their own piece and leave it to the audience to sort it out.

Now it's possible that this one occasion was the exception.

I'll bet you 100 dollars it wasn't.

[Paul McEnery]

BIG SURPRISE THERE

BTW, if I were to jump up and say "not that I've looked at the latest Rob Liefeld comic, but I imagine the art was craptastic", would you pop up over the wall to snipe then, too?

Heaven forfend anyone ever make a generalization based on long term observation.

[Hulkamaniac]

Publicly-traded corporations aren't usually run by people who do big-picture, long-term planning. And their shareholders tend to skew older, so there is limited interest in what the world will be like, say, 30 years from now. They tend to focus on now and the next quarter, and maybe next year. So they are unprepared to analyze the real impact of global warming. In otherwards, if a huge number of customers lose their homes due to coastal flooding, won't that hurt profits in a major way? If people are spending lots of money for essentials like food, won't that cut into sales of pretty much anything inedible?

exactly. The irony WILL you.:p
but alas, all one has to do is look at the tobacco corporations to realize that kind of logic does not hold water in the corporate ideal. You'd think that a product that will eventually kill off 99.9% of those who purchase it would think about doing something else. Instead they 1. lie about it to their customers 2. when that is discovered they move their product into new markets where they can sell their product of death to third world countries that do not care about the downside of the product because, hey look at that, they pay those governments loads to not care.

[Sanagi]

Meh, science. What's science done for us lately? Heck, that whole age of reason thing was a mistake. Led us right into the world wars, overpopulation, and socialism. Screw reason.

[cactusmaac]

It's a political issue due to the fact that it would cost corporations that pay the coffers of politicians tons of money to actually do something about it. As long as there is a vested interest for corporations to fight federal and international law that would cost them revenue as a trade off to help the world in regards to global warming and pollution in general it will always be a political issue. If we were to take that power of monetary influence away from the process then maybe something can happen.

I've never understood this rather naive point of view that consistently blames corporations for all the evil in the world. Reality is a little more complex.

If not much is being done about global warming it's because people don't perceive it to be an imminent threat. That is why raising gas taxes is highly unpopular as would be any attempt to restrict air travel. It is also why industrialising countries in Asia and Africa, India and China are very unlikely to cut carbon emissions since they're not about to tell their people they have to go without jobs in factories, cars, TV, fridges.

Agreed. My point being, in response to the original post, is that it's people like him that garner too much attention by trying their damnedest to muddle a issue often for their own glory.

Lomborg's opinion is that global warming is a long-term problem regarding long-term solutions. In the meantime, spending money on improving access to micronutrients and dealing with AIDS and malaria is likely to offer more gains in lives saved and productivity gained for humanity as a whole.

It is also a little harsh to assume he's saying this for his own personal glory. What proof do you have of that?

[cactusmaac]

As I recall, the big drought and flooding earlier this year screwed up the rural and outback towns and weren't much of a picnic in the cities either. So they'd be doubly screwed.

That would be much less of a problem if the government hadn't 1) consistently underspent on flood defences, 2) encouraged people to build houses on flood plains and (3) told the insurance industry not to charge higher premiums for those that did.

[Kid Omega]

Lomborg's opinion is that global warming is a long-term problem regarding long-term solutions. In the meantime, spending money on improving access to micronutrients and dealing with AIDS and malaria is likely to offer more gains in lives saved and productivity gained for humanity as a whole.

It is also a little harsh to assume he's saying this for his own personal glory. What proof do you have of that?

I agree... it's hard for me to take a negative view of someone whose main argument is "spend more money on AIDS and other disease in Africa".

His analysis of the problems with Kyoto seemed pretty astute... he wasn't saying that Global Warming isn'treal, or isn't a problem, just that throwing money at it blindly is wasteful.

[beetlebum]

Thank You! Well said mate. And problems with the environment require long term solutions, such as making ethanol more widely available. The US currently buys 1.6 billion liters of ethanol from Brazil, and produces around 18 billion liters. We will need 132 billion litres a year of ethanol if the 2017 target set by Bush is to be met. That could reduce the price of fuel while running on cleaner burning energy, not to mention it can help a country like Brazil where a third of the people live on $1 a day. Regarding Bjorn Lomborg:The UN estimates that there are 39.5 million people who have Aids world wide. 1 billion people live on less than a dollar a day. Preventable diseases claim an estimated 11 million children a year. While protection of the environment is important, I do believe these issues require more urgency.

[Charles RB]

Meh, science. What's science done for us lately?

Well, you know how you just made a comment that, thanks to a publically-accessible global communications system, can now be read by hundreds of people who'd never otherwise know you existed?

That would be much less of a problem if the government hadn't 1) consistently underspent on flood defences, 2) encouraged people to build houses on flood plains and (3) told the insurance industry not to charge higher premiums for those that did.

It saddens me that I can't tell if you're still talking about Australia or about the UK.

"Let's build on flood plains without spending much on flood defences for when the flood plains flood" - what part of this seemed like a good idea to people?

[Merey]

Meh, science. What's science done for us lately? Heck, that whole age of reason thing was a mistake. Led us right into the world wars, overpopulation, and socialism. Screw reason.

"Oh, you're going to zap me with penicillin and pesticides. Spare me that and I'll spare you the bomb and aerosols. But don't confuse progress with perfectibility. A great poet is always timely. A great philosopher is an urgent need. There's no rush for Isaac Newton. We were quite happy with Aristotle's cosmos. Personally, I preferred it. Fifty-five crystal spheres geared to God's crankshaft is my idea of a satisfying universe. I can't think of anything more trivial than the speed of light. Quarks, quasars - big bangs, black holes - who gives a shit? How did you people con us out of all that status? All that money?" - Arcadia, Stoppard

[king mob]

Considering the entirety of my post was "Why Global Warming is still a political issue" I don't know how it was nonsense. Maybe you don't agree with it, and I never said I did. That is why I believe it to be a political issue though.

It's the assumption that it's still unproven allied with the stuff about the 'liberal professor' that's been disproven again & again, including several threads on this board. Now of course there's debate as to just how fast global warming is happening, but there's a consenus among the scientific community that it is happening.

As for the political angle; of course it is. It's just that it's being used as a bludgeon between the right & left in the US (I'm not up to speed as to how it's being dealt with in Australia) while in the rest of the first world, it's about how green politics can be, not this petty argument we see in the US.

[Paul McEnery]

I agree... it's hard for me to take a negative view of someone whose main argument is "spend more money on AIDS and other disease in Africa".

His analysis of the problems with Kyoto seemed pretty astute... he wasn't saying that Global Warming isn'treal, or isn't a problem, just that throwing money at it blindly is wasteful.

Bullshit. Lomborg's a liar. He's the same kind of liar as Creationists. And he does it on behalf of business.

http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/

http://www.mylinkspage.com/lomborg.html

[Sonicjuce]

It's the assumption that it's still unproven allied with the stuff about the 'liberal professor' that's been disproven again & again, including several threads on this board. Now of course there's debate as to just how fast global warming is happening, but there's a consenus among the scientific community that it is happening.
You need to read more carfully though. I never said it wasn't fact whether global warming existed. I was just saying it is uncertain the effects humans are having on it. I also never said this was my belief, but that it was why politicians will argue about it.

As Kid Omega said about a person to the effect "why throw money at a problem when there is others" in summary. That is the problem in my mind. Why spend millions of dollars on this, heck probably even billions, when are education system in major cities is collapsing? That is where I have the problem with this, that is also where I have a problem with spending millions on a war when we need to educate our children.

[Paul McEnery]

You need to read more carfully though. I never said it wasn't fact whether global warming existed. I was just saying it is uncertain the effects humans are having on it. I also never said this was my belief, but that it was why politicians will argue about it.

As Kid Omega said about a person to the effect "why throw money at a problem when there is others" in summary. That is the problem in my mind. Why spend millions of dollars on this, heck probably even billions, when are education system in major cities is collapsing? That is where I have the problem with this, that is also where I have a problem with spending millions on a war when we need to educate our children.

Because the alternative is we all die.

Which is pretty much the case.

But less alarmist:

Throw some money at it decades ago, problem solved.

Throw quite a lot of money at it now, problem solved.

Don't solve the problem? Throw a whole helluva lot of money at it later.

I think we all see why the people with quite a lot of money want to put the problem off till later.

[king mob]

You need to read more carfully though. I never said it wasn't fact whether global warming existed. I was just saying it is uncertain the effects humans are having on it. I also never said this was my belief, but that it was why politicians will argue about it.

There's a consensus that humanity has had a whopping great effect upon our planet's climate. They're even putting together long term forecasts using current climate science.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6939347.stm



As Kid Omega said about a person to the effect "why throw money at a problem when there is others" in summary. That is the problem in my mind. Why spend millions of dollars on this, heck probably even billions, when are education system in major cities is collapsing? That is where I have the problem with this, that is also where I have a problem with spending millions on a war when we need to educate our children.

Saying 'why spend money on trying to aid global warming when there's AIDS & other major problems' is really an attempt to diminish the problem of global warming, not to mention creating an almighty straw man. It's on a par with Bob Geldof stating global warming has nothing to do with world hunger at the G8 in Gleneagles three years ago.

Of course these other problems are important, but to assume (as one does when asking 'why spend money on trying to aid global warming when there's AIDS & other major problems') that money spent on the global warming issue is diverting from other issues & is just spin. (especially when there's controversy over the caveats & focus upon abstinence the US put on their AIDS relief to African countries)

[Hoss]

Everyone knows that icebergs, hurricanes and heat waves have a liberal bias and hate the troops.

[Charles RB]

"There's no rush for Isaac Newton. We were quite happy with Aristotle's cosmos. Personally, I preferred it. Fifty-five crystal spheres geared to God's crankshaft is my idea of a satisfying universe. I can't think of anything more trivial than the speed of light. Quarks, quasars - big bangs, black holes - who gives a shit? How did you people con us out of all that status? All that money?" - Arcadia, Stoppard

Am I meant to look at that quote and think "wow, the person saying that is a massive idiot throwing a fit because, waaaaaaa, the real world and space turned out not to be what some guy said it was thousands of years ago, that person must suck"?

Coz I so did.

[Charles RB]

As reported here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2164776,00.html), scientists are worried icecaps are melting faster than predicted. Sea levels could rise very high.

So, why should we throw money at this when education and infrastructure in major cities is shaky? Because Cardiff & Edinburgh on the coast and Belfast & London have rivers running through them, meaning a massive rise on sea levels will decimate them, taking our government and economy and culture with them, and leave millions upon millions of people looking for a new house. Which they won't find because much of the rest of the fucking country has flooded too, worse than it did earlier this year in full view of the world's press.

So yes, we need to spend money on it. Amazingly, we can spend money on AIDS, education et al at the same time, as governments do all the damn time.

Onto the article itself:

The Greenland ice cap is melting so quickly that it is triggering earthquakes as pieces of ice several cubic kilometres in size break off.

Scientists monitoring events this summer say the acceleration could be catastrophic in terms of sea-level rise and make predictions this February by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change far too low.

Prof Correll, director of the global change programme at the Heinz Centre in Washington, said the estimates of sea level rise in the IPCC report were conservative and based on data two years old. The predicted rise this century was 20cm to 60cm, but it would be at the upper end of this range at least, he said, and some believed it could be two metres. This would be catastrophic for European coastlines.

He had flown over the Ilulissat glacier and "seen gigantic holes in it through which swirling masses of melt water were falling. I first looked at this glacier in the 1960s and there were no holes. These so-called moulins, 10 to 15 metres across, have opened up all over the place. There are hundreds of them."

He said ice-penetrating radar showed that this melt water was pouring through to the bottom of the glacier creating a lake 500 metres deep which was causing the glacier "to float on land. These melt-water rivers are lubricating the glacier, like applying oil to a surface and causing it to slide into the sea. It is causing a massive acceleration which could be catastrophic."

It could be worse though.

HP Lovecraft could be right and there are dead alien cities in the polar regions infested by ravenous Shoggoths, and those Shoggoths could be forced out to roam lands inhabited by men, killing all they come across. That'd be worse.

[Michael P]

It could be worse though.

HP Lovecraft could be right and there are dead alien cities in the polar regions infested by ravenous Shoggoths, and those Shoggoths could be forced out to roam lands inhabited by men, killing all they come across. That'd be worse.

Te-ke-li-li! Te-ke-li-li!

[Sonicjuce]

There's a consensus that humanity has had a whopping great effect upon our planet's climate. They're even putting together long term forecasts using current climate science.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6939347.stm
Ok but you just supported my point in your wording. That is a "consensus". Consensus does not equal fact.

What is the solution for Global Warming? We spend millions to cut greenhouse emissions and put companies out of business trying to meet that standard? Thus unemployment sky rockets and suddenly you have other problems.

The other is that humans play god and put chemicals into the atmosphere to fight greenhouse gasses. That is my favorite. I always compare it too the wolf in Yellowstone. We made a mistake years ago killing off the wolf. Then we played god and put it back. When doing so we put the black Canadian wolf into Yellowstone where the timber wolf had been. The side effects of such an action were not entirely known. In the process the moose, elk, and many other animals are feeling the affects. The moose was not indigenous to Yellowstone and did not come down until the timber wolf had been wiped out. The moose does this weird thing where it digs a whole in the snow, and then lives in the hole with little ability to get out. The wolf climes in and kills off the moose and the calves in the hole. A similar thing is going on with the elk. I can tell you that in the 7 years I did pack trips in and out of Yellowstone I saw a huge decline in both. I can remember driving toward Yellowstone from the ranch I worked at in 2000 and you'd see more then one moose. I haven't seen a moose in over 3 years. I can also remember seeing huge herds of elk. Now they are small and with little to no calves.

I know your thinking what does this have to do with greenhouse gasses. It is a similar thing. We play god and suddenly we've created a much larger problem. We don't no the side effect of the gasses we would release into the atmosphere. Thus the only thing for us to do is limit the emissions of green house gasses.

Which brings me to my next point. Every time you breath you emit greenhouse gas. Thus the overpopulation of the earth is in large part hurrying the process of greenhouse gasses. Could global warming not be the way the earth fixes this? Rising temperatures melt polar ice caps and cause the circulation of the water to change (that whole thing in that movie that the name escapes me). This would in theory cause a large number of the population to be killed. I know this sounds horrible but could this not be the process of nature? If we start tampering with it we are playing god. Which brings me full circle.

[Charles RB]

What is the solution for Global Warming? We spend millions to cut greenhouse emissions and put companies out of business trying to meet that standard? Thus unemployment sky rockets and suddenly you have other problems.

The United Kingdom government has pledged to reduce its carbon emissions, in relation to 1990 levels, by 60% by 2050. This target is mandatory, with a target of 26% to 32% by 2020. This is made explicit in the all-partyClimate Change Bill and it is believed we can do this without any major economic problems, with a good part of the target being manageable by measure such as making new houses more energy efficient. There is information put out by the government, especially the London local govt. (posters all over the Tube at one point), telling individuals how they can cut their own carbon footprint easily and cheaply. There's also a European Union policy on carbon emission reduction.

Based on all that, I don't follow the line of argument that says we'll doom our economy. It doesn't seem to line up with what's actually going on over here.


Rising temperatures melt polar ice caps and cause the circulation of the water to change (that whole thing in that movie that the name escapes me). This would in theory cause a large number of the population to be killed. I know this sounds horrible but could this not be the process of nature?

I'm confused, as this could mean you're saying "could this not be meant to happen?" about something that can and possibly will cause your friends to die, your family to die, your neighbours to die and you to die.

We are talking about widespread death and destruction here. Saying "oh, it might be meant to happen" seems bloody daft.

[Paul McEnery]

Ok but you just supported my point in your wording. That is a "consensus". Consensus does not equal fact.
.

Didn't bother reading the rest of this. (Oh noes! Now Kid Omega will hate me!)

Why not?

Because in my eyes, you've pretty much stopped being interested in the truth.

I mean, I didn't in any way believe the guff you said about your "liberal professor", because if you say that, you might as well say "my friend's cousin". Or "I read on this insane right wing blog'. So yeah, I thought you were making it up then; and then doing the usual soft shoe shuffle afterwards.

But when you say "consensus does not equal fact", it proves beyond reasonable doubt that you just want to stir shit. Since everyone knows that scientific consensus is scientific fact.

[Shellhead]

Ok but you just supported my point in your wording. That is a "consensus". Consensus does not equal fact.

Problems can be solved without persuading every last person on the planet that there is a problem. Consensus is a good starting point. Remember, the Flat Earth Society is still around. Fuck the Flat Earth Society, they are a lost cause.

What is the solution for Global Warming? We spend millions to cut greenhouse emissions and put companies out of business trying to meet that standard? Thus unemployment sky rockets and suddenly you have other problems.

Farmers constantly worry about the weather. Global warming could pose a huge threat to our food supply, one that could lead to starvation on a global scale. Death or unemployment? Which is worse? Seriously? I'll give you a big hint: unemployed people can eventually find another job.

The other is that humans play god and put chemicals into the atmosphere to fight greenhouse gasses. That is my favorite. I always compare it too the wolf in Yellowstone. We made a mistake years ago killing off the wolf. Then we played god and put it back. When doing so we put the black Canadian wolf into Yellowstone where the timber wolf had been. The side effects of such an action were not entirely known. In the process the moose, elk, and many other animals are feeling the affects. The moose was not indigenous to Yellowstone and did not come down until the timber wolf had been wiped out. The moose does this weird thing where it digs a whole in the snow, and then lives in the hole with little ability to get out. The wolf climes in and kills off the moose and the calves in the hole. A similar thing is going on with the elk. I can tell you that in the 7 years I did pack trips in and out of Yellowstone I saw a huge decline in both. I can remember driving toward Yellowstone from the ranch I worked at in 2000 and you'd see more then one moose. I haven't seen a moose in over 3 years. I can also remember seeing huge herds of elk. Now they are small and with little to no calves.

We are facing a huge problem. Would you prefer that we do nothing, because there is a chance that we might make a mistake? When I'm headed for a crash, I put on the brakes and try to steer around it. Full speed ahead could be a lethal choice.

I know your thinking what does this have to do with greenhouse gasses. It is a similar thing. We play god and suddenly we've created a much larger problem. We don't no the side effect of the gasses we would release into the atmosphere. Thus the only thing for us to do is limit the emissions of green house gasses.

We've been "playing god" with the environment since before the advent of the industrial revolution, but it took industrialization to really start affecting the whole planet. Technology has brought us to this point, and it's going to take massive changes, technological and otherwise, to bring us back from the brink of disaster.

Which brings me to my next point. Every time you breath you emit greenhouse gas. Thus the overpopulation of the earth is in large part hurrying the process of greenhouse gasses. Could global warming not be the way the earth fixes this? Rising temperatures melt polar ice caps and cause the circulation of the water to change (that whole thing in that movie that the name escapes me). This would in theory cause a large number of the population to be killed. I know this sounds horrible but could this not be the process of nature? If we start tampering with it we are playing god. Which brings me full circle.

Overpopulation is definitely part of the problem, but not due to the simple act of breathing. Think about it... which creates more pollution: the exhaust fumes from an SUV or the exhalations of the driver and his passengers? This is not a matter of speculation, we can actually measure this with scientific instruments. I do agree with your final conclusion. Global warming will not end all life on Earth (unless there is a nuclear war triggered by fighting over dwindling resources), but it will definitely be a bad deal for the human race.

Widespread starvation will be much worse than these other absurd problems that people are worrying about, like the value of their stocks, or unemployment figures, or quality of education, or the collapse of the 35W bridge, or even AIDS in Africa. How do I know this? Easy, because none of these other problems pose a direct threat to all human life. The fact that the threat is not immediate does diminish the problem, save that the normal human tendency towards procrastination could prove lethal this time.

[Valmore]

It's more like what humans have done has accelerated and changed the process of the global warming cycle, not so much that we created it, but in that we made it worse.

And it's a political issue because every stinking thing is a political issue, because humans have this misguided idea that the government can actually effectively change things on a consistent basis. Or they're just the jokers most likely to affect change.

[Shellhead]

It's more like what humans have done has accelerated and changed the process of the global warming cycle, not so much that we created it, but in that we made it worse.

And it's a political issue because every stinking thing is a political issue, because humans have this misguided idea that the government can actually effectively change things on a consistent basis. Or they're just the jokers most likely to affect change.

I agree that there are some issues that government can't handle well. But global warming is a global problem, and it will take the coordinated efforts of most nations to actually make a difference. Otherwise, we are facing the Tragedy of the Commons, with predictable results:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

[Nick Soapdish]

Lomborg's opinion is that global warming is a long-term problem regarding long-term solutions. In the meantime, spending money on improving access to micronutrients and dealing with AIDS and malaria is likely to offer more gains in lives saved and productivity gained for humanity as a whole.

It is also a little harsh to assume he's saying this for his own personal glory. What proof do you have of that?

He's been pretty consistent in opposing spending any kind of money on environmental issues.

And what he's proposing is trying to spend money on short term problems and short term solutions while ignoring the long term solution. That's great for us in the short term and probably great for him period since he won't live to see the long term problem come to pass. But it sucks for our descendents.

Long-term economic planning is a tough sell because a lot of times, the investor isn't seeing the gains. It's the investors' heirs.

I'd be curious about what kind of discount rate he's using to calculate the benefits of fixing global warming and what he considers the effects of global warming to be. If you muck about with the discount rate, you can sell or sink anything.

Ok but you just supported my point in your wording. That is a "consensus". Consensus does not equal fact.

What is the solution for Global Warming? We spend millions to cut greenhouse emissions and put companies out of business trying to meet that standard? Thus unemployment sky rockets and suddenly you have other problems.

The other is that humans play god and put chemicals into the atmosphere to fight greenhouse gasses. That is my favorite.

The IPCC sorta suggested that sarcastically and scientists have commented on how all the aerosols prevented global warming from around the 40s to 70s. Of course, they had much worse effects. I hope to God that global warming doesn't get bad enough that we actually consider stuff like this which is why I want us to try fixing it now.

Meanwhile, you're suggesting worst case scenarios. Most of the changes can be done with minimal impacts and estimates indicate that it'll slow the rate of economic growth by just 1% of its usual.

For instance, the US has been adamant about not making automakers raise fuel efficiency standards. And now Detroit is panicking because nobody wants to buy its cars and is going for the fuel efficient Japanese models instead. We can't even sell most of our cars in China because we don't meet their environmental standards. I imagine that might be a bit of a boost to their bottom line if that market was opened up to them.

I always compare it too the wolf in Yellowstone. We made a mistake years ago killing off the wolf. Then we played god and put it back. When doing so we put the black Canadian wolf into Yellowstone where the timber wolf had been. The side effects of such an action were not entirely known. In the process the moose, elk, and many other animals are feeling the affects. The moose was not indigenous to Yellowstone and did not come down until the timber wolf had been wiped out. The moose does this weird thing where it digs a whole in the snow, and then lives in the hole with little ability to get out. The wolf climes in and kills off the moose and the calves in the hole. A similar thing is going on with the elk. I can tell you that in the 7 years I did pack trips in and out of Yellowstone I saw a huge decline in both. I can remember driving toward Yellowstone from the ranch I worked at in 2000 and you'd see more then one moose. I haven't seen a moose in over 3 years. I can also remember seeing huge herds of elk. Now they are small and with little to no calves.

I know your thinking what does this have to do with greenhouse gasses. It is a similar thing. We play god and suddenly we've created a much larger problem. We don't no the side effect of the gasses we would release into the atmosphere. Thus the only thing for us to do is limit the emissions of green house gasses.


Admittedly, usually mankind screws up its fixes for its screwups, but is that an example?

You said that the moose isn't native to Yellowstone so it sounds like the wolf is just fixing that.


Which brings me to my next point. Every time you breath you emit greenhouse gas. Thus the overpopulation of the earth is in large part hurrying the process of greenhouse gasses. Could global warming not be the way the earth fixes this? Rising temperatures melt polar ice caps and cause the circulation of the water to change (that whole thing in that movie that the name escapes me). This would in theory cause a large number of the population to be killed. I know this sounds horrible but could this not be the process of nature? If we start tampering with it we are playing god. Which brings me full circle.

The overpopulation of people is resulting in the underpopulation of other animals. It sorta balances out.

But yes, the earth will fix this itself. I'd rather try to slow down what the earth needs to fix than lose half the world's population (a fraction arbitrarily chosen and probably too high). If we break it less, it doesn't need to fix as much.

[Charles RB]

(Oh noes! Now Kid Omega will hate me!)


You've turned to cosplay?

[Sonicjuce]

Didn't bother reading the rest of this. (Oh noes! Now Kid Omega will hate me!)

Why not?

Because in my eyes, you've pretty much stopped being interested in the truth.

I mean, I didn't in any way believe the guff you said about your "liberal professor", because if you say that, you might as well say "my friend's cousin". Or "I read on this insane right wing blog'. So yeah, I thought you were making it up then; and then doing the usual soft shoe shuffle afterwards.

But when you say "consensus does not equal fact", it proves beyond reasonable doubt that you just want to stir shit. Since everyone knows that scientific consensus is scientific fact.

The class was called discovering science at the University of wyoming. I believe the number was 1002 or something, its been a couple years. The professors name was Mark Lyford. I might hold some odd opinions or what not, but I am not a liar and don't make up shit "to stif things up". Here's his web page through the university as wellhttp://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/botany/Lyford.htm

[Paul McEnery]

The class was called discovering science at the University of wyoming. I believe the number was 1002 or something, its been a couple years. The professors name was Mark Lyford. I might hold some odd opinions or what not, but I am not a liar and don't make up shit "to stif things up". Here's his web page through the university as wellhttp://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/botany/Lyford.htm

Fair enough.

Then either you're misrepresenting him, or he's a liar who should be kicked out of university teaching. Which is it?

Oh, and scientific consensus is still identical to "fact". We do understand this, yes?

[Sonicjuce]

Fair enough.

Then either you're misrepresenting him, or he's a liar who should be kicked out of university teaching. Which is it?

Oh, and scientific consensus is still identical to "fact". We do understand this, yes?

I don't see how I am misrepresenting him? He discussed all the different causes of global warming and did an outstanding job staying away from one side of the argument. He was also an outstanding teacher. First time in my entire educational career where science actually made some sense.

Well I suppose that in science consensus can be considered fact. However, it must be remembered that hundred of years ago it was a general consensus that the earth was flat. We know that isn't true.

[Charles RB]

Well I suppose that in science consensus can be considered fact. However, it must be remembered that hundred of years ago it was a general consensus that the earth was flat. We know that isn't true.

So, the vast majority of scientists believe human activity makes climate change worse and have a vast amount of evidence to make this view up... but we should ignore this because people believed the earth was flat once.

[J. Robb]

My only problem with the issue is the name: "Global Warming". That's just one part of a much larger picture, but it creates this endless debate of "How do we know the planet is really warming? This link says..." and so on.

What this really is about is "DON'T S**T WHERE YOU EAT". We're polluting the nest, spoiling the planet, literally burning its lungs, yet the debate is constantly about "hockey stick" graphs and Al Gore.

I understand the use of scare tactics to try and wake people up, but I wish it wasn't necessary. I don't understand why some people are so protective of their right to drive gas-guzzling vehicles, or leave every light in their house on 24 hours a day. But then again, telling overweight, out-of-shape people they're losing possibly decades from their lifespan is rarely enough to shake them into action.

Our western culture is just plain lazy, and I think most of the anti-"Global Warming" crowd debates the issue simply to hide the fact that they just don't care. Ironically, they put a lot of effort into arguing the issue, so they don't have to put any effort into improving our world for future generations.

[Paul McEnery]

I don't see how I am misrepresenting him? He discussed all the different causes of global warming and did an outstanding job staying away from one side of the argument. He was also an outstanding teacher. First time in my entire educational career where science actually made some sense.

The thing about global warming as it was taught to me at a major state university by an extremely liberal professor is that it is still not certain humans have caused global warming. The earth as a whole has always gone in a cyclical manner of cooling and heating. He always said "Correlation does not equal causation." .

There we go. Cutting through the crap, that sure looks like misrepresentation. Since there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever about anthropogenic global warming. It's as clear as the way that turning on your central heating makes the house warmer. Unless in your apartment you leave that to Dobby the house elf.

Well I suppose that in science consensus can be considered fact. However, it must be remembered that hundred of years ago it was a general consensus that the earth was flat. We know that isn't true.

It never was. Read the pre-socratics. The real argument was whether the earth was spherical or cylindrical. The curvature was in no serious doubt. This is scientific snopesery.

The key word is "scientific". All scientific "fact" is the result of excluding all other possible hypotheses by disproof. "Consensus" is what the one model that's left standing, and the inescapable conclusions.

For instance, we know as a "fact" that gravity operates by the law of inverse squares (IIRC); what we don't have a consensus about is the means by which this obtains; i.e. we don't know if there are discrete quanta by which we can describe the force of gravity.

[Shellhead]

Some people don't seem to understand how the scientific method works.

1. The scientist comes up with a theory.

2. The scientist tests the theory, basically performing two sets of tests, one with and one without the thing (substance, process, activity, whatever) that is being tested.

3. The scientist compares the two sets of data to see if the presence of the thing did or did not make a significant difference.

4. The scientist publishes the results, so that other scientists can attempt to replicate those results. If so, then the overall knowledge of that subject is increased.

That last step is really important, because it is the way that the crackpot ideas are filtered out. When scientists reach a consensus on a topic, it's not because they talked about it for a while and then took a vote. It's because enough scientists were able to replicate the results of the original experiment, and nobody was able to generate conflicting data with the same methodology.

[Sonicjuce]

So, the vast majority of scientists believe human activity makes climate change worse and have a vast amount of evidence to make this view up... but we should ignore this because people believed the earth was flat once.

I am really playing devil advocate. You all seem to forget that the name of the thread is "Why is global warming still a political issue." Look at how you have all argued with me. It is just like how the politicians argue. So there you go thats why it is still a political issue.

[Paul McEnery]

I am really playing devil advocate. You all seem to forget that the name of the thread is "Why is global warming still a political issue." Look at how you have all argued with me. It is just like how the politicians argue. So there you go thats why it is still a political issue.

Yes.

99% of people know the truth, but one bugger has to go and kick up a stink about it anyway.

[Charles RB]

Look at how you have all argued with me. It is just like how the politicians argue.

...you're joking. Please tell me you're joking and not seriously comparing this thread, where multiple posters have pointed out a number of fallacies in your arguments over and over again, to debates in government.

[Sanagi]

Well, you know how you just made a comment that, thanks to a publically-accessible global communications system, can now be read by hundreds of people who'd never otherwise know you existed?
I was hoping this avatar would help people recognize sarcasm.

[Nick Soapdish]

Well I suppose that in science consensus can be considered fact. However, it must be remembered that hundred of years ago it was a general consensus that the earth was flat. We know that isn't true.

Not an especially good example.

Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth a couple centuries before the birth of Christ.

Even in the Dark Ages, the majority of educated people believed that the earth was spherical although less is known about the commons.Sailors would've known by observation. When observing a upcoming ship, the sail is the first to appear.

Plus, all of that is well before the development of the Scientific Method (like the geocentric theory which was commonly believed).

A better example might be evolution. There wasn't really a scientific consensus before Darwin's theory although many gave Lamarck's ideas serious thought.

Or better yet, gravity, since Newton's theory isn't precisely correct and was amended by Einstein.

I tend to think of that as a positive for science though. It doesn't cling to old ideas, but is willing to discard ideas when proved false.

[Nick Soapdish]

Fair enough.

Then either you're misrepresenting him, or he's a liar who should be kicked out of university teaching. Which is it?

Oh, and scientific consensus is still identical to "fact". We do understand this, yes?

That's a bit too much. Without knowing exactly what he was saying, it's tough to say that he was outright lying.

I'm pretty sure that most climatologists agree that some of the warming is natural - up to 30% even (a study by Duke, I believe). So the professor may have simply been trying to emphasize the multitude of causes including natural ones. It doesn't mean that the guy is a crackpot like Singer who was claiming up to 2 years ago that there was no such thing as global warming and now has reversed and is saying that it's unstoppable.

The main problem that I see is that Sonicjuice was saying that he was trying to stay away from one side of the argument so he may have gone overboard in trying to be balanced because the evidence is pretty much all on one side. The existence of previous natural climate changes doesn't mean that all are natural.

(That's one thing that I don't understand about the contrarians' arguments. They present the previous climate changes as though they're revealing new information that climatologists aren't aware of despite it being a central part of the AGW argument.)

[cactusmaac]

It's comforting to think that stopping people from driving SUVs and leaving their lights on all the time is enough to stop global warming, but that's severely underestimating the kind of lifestyle changes required now to severely cut CO2 emissions.

[Loren]

It's comforting to think that stopping people from driving SUVs and leaving their lights on all the time is enough to stop global warming, but that's severely underestimating the kind of lifestyle changes required now to severely cut CO2 emissions.

Have you heard about the proposed ban on plasma screen TVs (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=480841&in_page_id=1770&ito=1490)?

[cactusmaac]

Christ. I have nobody to vote for.

[Shellhead]

It's comforting to think that stopping people from driving SUVs and leaving their lights on all the time is enough to stop global warming, but that's severely underestimating the kind of lifestyle changes required now to severely cut CO2 emissions.

True. It's already a tough sell getting people to make sensible changes, but it's going to get a lot harder once the tough topics come up, like family size.

[Drew Van T.]

Have you heard about the proposed ban on plasma screen TVs (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=480841&in_page_id=1770&ito=1490)?

Every little bit helps. Ban those TVs, Cameron! Good riddance to bad hardware.

[Charles RB]

Banning electricity-inefficient goods and actually taxing airlines (which Blair ducked) sound sensible measures, if annoying. And by annoying I mean "oh Christ, NOW how much will flights to the States cost me?".

I'm still in favour of it, but that won't stop me moaning. I'm a student, damn it.

[Nick Soapdish]

It's comforting to think that stopping people from driving SUVs and leaving their lights on all the time is enough to stop global warming, but that's severely underestimating the kind of lifestyle changes required now to severely cut CO2 emissions.

But continuing to ignore the little changes will just force the big changes to be bigger down the road.

[king mob]

Have you heard about the proposed ban on plasma screen TVs (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=480841&in_page_id=1770&ito=1490)?

Do remember that David Cameron is the person who turns up to Parliament on a bike while his Mercedes S Class follows behind him just out of camera range.

[cactusmaac]

But continuing to ignore the little changes will just force the big changes to be bigger down the road.

Or it might be irrelevant messing about at the margins which will make minimal difference anyway.

[Nick Soapdish]

Or it might be irrelevant messing about at the margins which will make minimal difference anyway.

Little things add up.

And I find it ironic that the US has steadfastly refused to do anything about fuel efficiency standards and now Detroit is in trouble because people aren't buying the gas guzzlers as much anymore. Plus, they can't sell most of their cars to China which denies them a future market to expand into.

It's not really reflective of the need for a government solution (although I think that the government should've been involved), but more that the industry in general is just shortsighted and doesn't look beyond the next couple quarters' earnings.

And the little things that you mentioned aren't the sort to require much in the way of sacrifice anyway.

[Sabrina_Fried]

Global Warming is a political issue because politicians are the ones with the power to make changes to human society, not scientists.

And most politicians seem to be doing just fine with the status quo, so they have little incentive to actually show some real leadership and push for real change.

Sabrina

[gary bolt]

Global Warming is a political issue because politicians are the ones with the power to make changes to human society, not scientists.

And most politicians seem to be doing just fine with the status quo, so they have little incentive to actually show some real leadership and push for real change.

Sabrina

I agree and would add that the big industries that will be most inconvenienced by addressing global warming are also incredibly influential lobbyists in Washington and other capitals. They pay a lot of money for spin and influence so that they can carry on doing what they do for as long as possible.

[Loren]

Do remember that David Cameron is the person who turns up to Parliament on a bike while his Mercedes S Class follows behind him just out of camera range.

Are you suggesting that he's proposing a TV ban in order to gain popular support for himself?

Man, Britain's weird.

[king mob]

Are you suggesting that he's proposing a TV ban in order to gain popular support for himself?

Man, Britain's weird.

He is, mainly because he knows environmental issues will help him win votes and make the Conservatives seem like they 'care'. Of course the problem is that the Tories are dead & Labour have swung completely to the right & are getting away with shite the Tories would never have gotten away with.

[Charles RB]

I agree and would add that the big industries that will be most inconvenienced by addressing global warming are also incredibly influential lobbyists in Washington and other capitals.

It'd be nice if the industries that will be most inconvenienced by global warming, i.e. any industry that relies of key cities not being destroyed, were doing a counter-lobby.

Of course the problem is that the Tories are dead & Labour have swung completely to the right & are getting away with shite the Tories would never have gotten away with.

So it's a good thing the Liberal Democrats are here to provide an alternate choice.

Or it would be a good thing if they could get their fucking arses in gear.