Eukaryote
Deity
Individual conservation is a fad. Global warming is a long term problem that needs to be solved by scientific reaserch and devolopment along with sensible logging and electricty producing practices.
Global Warming is a Fad
- Thread starter imperfect.la
- Start date
BasketCase
Username sez it all
I don't think this is it. I can't be sure, of course, since I'm dealing in the question of what people are thinking. Dangerous territory.
However, the same thing we're seeing right now with global warming has happened before. Strike "global warming" and replace it with "wolves". And change the date from today to the late 19th and early 20th century.
Back then, a lot of people were really worried about wolves. Wolves were the Al-Qaeda of the 19th century. Especially hated by farmers. But somewhere along the line, that began to change. People began to stop seeing wolves as bloodthirsty monsters, and the demand for the services of hunters and trappers began to decline.
Hunters and trappers responded by doing exactly what global warming "douches" are doing right now. They began making strident warnings about predations by wolves, and as they faded further into the past, hunters and trappers became louder and louder, their claims more and more outrageous. Late in the game, when they quoted figures on the number of cattle lost to wolf predation every year, they were quoting numbers that were physically impossible.
Global warming doubters are definitely having a field day right now, and getting more and more attention in press and media. Skeptic Magazine being one of my favorites--that magazine leans to the left on a lot of things, particularly religion and evolution, but the magazine is also very harsh on global warming theories. That willingness to have one foot on each side of the political fence is something you rarely see. Anyway, the global warming bible thumpers are seeing this field day by the doubters, and having one of two reactions: either they're trying to get people to come to their senses, or they have lost their senses themselves and are trying to regain the attention they're losing.
Who knows which.
Huayna Capac357
Deity
You are completely right. People pretend to care about global warming but are enticed by the "people of the oil and natural gas industry" and the so-called "clean" coal and thus pollute even more and more. Those "people of the oil and natural gas industry" should be put in jail for lying.
Too true, we need more solutions.
Right now, individual efforts to reduce one's footprint don't seem to be sufficient, even for those people. We need some systemic changes brought forward.
aelf
Ashen One
Which is why the free market isn't going to be terribly helpful. The demand for going green might be fashionable, but it might not be enough to change the trend among the big players.
I think this could have been stated so much better than in the OP.
I think this could have been stated so much better than in the OP.
Being right is an important part. Handling the diplomacy is also an important part.
I think the OP makes some valid points.
Global Warming is real, but people attribute all sorts of stuff to it. When a "liberal" says that a certain hurricane or heat wave was caused by Global Warming, he is beign as anti-scientific as the "conservatives" that plainly deny that average temperatures have been rising.
What we see on this thread is alot of people saying that the "liberal" position is correct, even if poorly advertised. It is not. Attributing all sorts of catastrophes to GW, or making doomsday predictions, is nothing but pseudo-science.
Global Warming is real, but people attribute all sorts of stuff to it. When a "liberal" says that a certain hurricane or heat wave was caused by Global Warming, he is beign as anti-scientific as the "conservatives" that plainly deny that average temperatures have been rising.
What we see on this thread is alot of people saying that the "liberal" position is correct, even if poorly advertised. It is not. Attributing all sorts of catastrophes to GW, or making doomsday predictions, is nothing but pseudo-science.
I also have to say I love how all the fixes for the environment that I could be doing are way over my income bracket. I mean if they want me to do my part, they need to be willing to lower the price so I can afford it and still pay for my home without needed to starve to make ends meet. Most people cannot go and purchase a hybrid as they are simply too expensive. For more earth friendly products I have to pay out the nose. I would love to help out but my wallet has to disagree for the time being.
You probably make 10x more than a peer in India or China, so you can see the hypocrisy of expecting them to act first.
I have a hard time with the doomsday predictions. I don't like it when they're stated as fact, for sure. And I don't like it when people don't point out that they're worst-case tipping-point scenarios.
I don't know if we should be calling them pseudoscience, though I have a tough time coming up with a better word. As far as we know, there is a potential risk with the oceanic conveyor and there is a potential risk with the methane getting unlocked from the arctic.
In both cases, many of the concepts which can be tested in the lab have been tested in the labs. So, we're not sure if either event will happen (regardless of CO2 ppm), but we can state with some certainty that it very well might. I know that sentence seems nonsensical, but it's a similar statement to what's made by the weather people ("40% chance of rain tomorrow").
And then, there's an analysis of what that risk is worth. If there's a 5% chance that the methane will unlock with a 8 C rise in arctic temperature, is that worth acting on? How about if it's a 20% risk? What do we do if 8 C warming has a 15% chance of stopping the ocean conveyor? If it happens, we're screwed. But it might not happen.
I don't like it when people talk about these risks without emphasising that they're merely probable worst-case situations.
I tend to not factor in tipping-point scenarios into my climate change discussion, because I find that the regular talking-points are sufficient. I'm not a fan of Russian Roulette, though.
I have a hard time with the doomsday predictions. I don't like it when they're stated as fact, for sure. And I don't like it when people don't point out that they're worst-case tipping-point scenarios.
I don't know if we should be calling them pseudoscience, though I have a tough time coming up with a better word. As far as we know, there is a potential risk with the oceanic conveyor and there is a potential risk with the methane getting unlocked from the arctic.
In both cases, many of the concepts which can be tested in the lab have been tested in the labs. So, we're not sure if either event will happen (regardless of CO2 ppm), but we can state with some certainty that it very well might. I know that sentence seems nonsensical, but it's a similar statement to what's made by the weather people ("40% chance of rain tomorrow").
And then, there's an analysis of what that risk is worth. If there's a 5% chance that the methane will unlock with a 8 C rise in arctic temperature, is that worth acting on? How about if it's a 20% risk? What do we do if 8 C warming has a 15% chance of stopping the ocean conveyor? If it happens, we're screwed. But it might not happen.
I don't like it when people talk about these risks without emphasising that they're merely probable worst-case situations.
I tend to not factor in tipping-point scenarios into my climate change discussion, because I find that the regular talking-points are sufficient. I'm not a fan of Russian Roulette, though.
Merkinball
Deity
The ocean conveyor is NOT going to stop because of global warming. Seriously, WTH...
BasketCase
Username sez it all
Hybrids are a cleverly-disguised scam. They only save gas by virtue of being small (which has already been done with non-hybrids) and by having an energy-recovery braking system (which can be installed in just about any other model of car).
So, here's a tip: if you wanna save gas, keep it simple, and buy a compact or mid-size (with no turbocharger) next time you're shopping for a street sled.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Oh! An absolute statement. You forgot the argumentation to this amazing statement.
How do you know for sure it is NOT going to stop, not a chance, no way, no ma'am, no how?
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Excellent post
BasketCase
Username sez it all
I'll give Machinae five points as well.
I pretty much automatically discount tipping-point scenarios. Exit Mundi posted a whole bunch of tipping-points that, if they occurred, would FREEZE the planet rather than incinerate it.
I pretty much automatically discount tipping-point scenarios. Exit Mundi posted a whole bunch of tipping-points that, if they occurred, would FREEZE the planet rather than incinerate it.
Huayna Capac357
Deity
But even if they are worst-case scenarios, shouldn't we make it so that they're impossible? Even if there is no Global Warming, if we're doing something to help the earth and our own sustainablilty, as well as making jobs and improving technology ("There is a single light of science and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere") wouldn't you take that rather than decreasing nonsustainable fossil fuels and polluting the earth (which backfires every time!) ?
Meteor Man
Cylindropuntia imbricata
No, Global Warming is NOT a fad. There is mountains and mountains of evidence to support that. I know that people say that every little tsunami, volcano, and earthquake is a result of global warming, though they're not. It is just the increasing temperature, and violence that storms that hurricanes produce that contributes to the evidence.
Oh, and all those lies the oil companys are feeding to the public are just a bunch of crap.
I just don't agree with basket case on one thing: hybrids are not scams. And it is not because they are small that they save gas, I've seen some BIG hybrids.
Oh, and if I'm wrong, forgive me for being my 13 year old self...
Oh, and all those lies the oil companys are feeding to the public are just a bunch of crap.
I just don't agree with basket case on one thing: hybrids are not scams. And it is not because they are small that they save gas, I've seen some BIG hybrids.
Oh, and if I'm wrong, forgive me for being my 13 year old self...
He never said it's not going to stop*, merely that it won't stop due to global warming. IIRC, the conveyor is threatened by a large influx of cold water. Since the ice on greenland can go from solid without any actual warming (0C solid -> 0C liquid) then there's no actual warming needed to dump all that water.
*"Stopping" the conveyor is a shortform for the actual theory which obviously only has the conveyor slowing and seizing and causing dead zones.
You can't discount a tipping point scenario, because tipping points happen all the time. You can try to find feedback events which cause the tipping point to be delayed, and then use those events to rearrange the prediction of when the tipping point will occur. That type of science will help increase our ability to predict. Right now, however, most of the objections to tipping-point scenarios is that people just can't imagine that they would happen, or refuse to imagine that bad things can happen when you tilt a system too badly.
Similar threads
