Are you absolutely 100% certain that global warming isin't/won't happen?

[ShcShc11 0]

Been travelling a bit to Europe, talking to Professors/having coffee with businessmen.

It is pretty unanimous that they truly believe that it is happening. People who've went to the Arctic, who've spent years researching on this.

I can understand skepticism, but I'm curious how people can flatly deny it after having such a pretty catastrophic food drought. Even John Block (secretary of agriculture for Reagan administration) believes it is because of global warming.


What is it about people who get outraged over a few billion $ on green projects, yet be indifferent in hundreds of billion of $ of damages worldwide in the past 3 years (anyone remember Russia's fire and agriculture crisis?).

Madness.

"Droughts, floods, hurricanes and other extreme weather cost the U.S. economy at least $55 billion in 2011, according to NOAA, with 14 separate events exceeding $1 billion. The devastating drought and associated wildfires in Texas and Oklahoma alone cost American crop farmers $7.6 billion and the cotton and cattle industries around $5.4 billion."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/manishbapna/2012/07/23/the-missing-link-droughts-the-economy-and-climate-change/
...and this is the U.S only from this year. Russian and European crises were worse.



Cheers!
Shc

[tkhayes 129]

Largely because human nature is to live for the moment, not the future. government is structured to look 4 years ahead to the next election, not the next generation.

Not the absolute rule, but generally the rule. We will respond when it is a crisis and hundreds of millions are dying and not before.

[billvon 2,406]

>What is it about people who get outraged over a few billion $ on green projects, yet be
>indifferent in hundreds of billion of $ of damages worldwide in the past 3 years
>(anyone remember Russia's fire and agriculture crisis?).

Because they don't see it as science, they see it as politics. They figure that the science parts of it are amenable to a well-crafted ad campaign or the election of an anti-global-warming leader.

There are an awful lot of people out there who don't have a lot of connection to the real world. They get their food from a market. Their wastes are made to go away, by a process they don't really want to understand. Most of their connection to the rest of the world comes via an LCD screen, and thus they are as influenced by movies about disasters as they are by the science being done. Their jobs involve management and direction of other people (i.e. politics) and thus they see the world as a political problem to be solved. The "real" world (the climate, the ecosystem, the atmosphere) are just other things to manage; if you crack down on them hard enough they will do what you want, just like people do. Fire the person and the problem goes away, or can at least be ignored or cleverly turfed.

(And these people exist on both sides of the political spectrum.)

Thus to many of them spending billions on green projects is a political blow, a "win" by the other side that hurts them - while spending billions on, say, a war is a political win. It's a game to them, and no one wants to lose "the game."

[EFS4LIFE 0]

I don't think many people seriously doubt the planet is warming. That is statisical fact. I think the debate lies in wether or not the warming is from polution. This planet has a long history of warming and cooling long before polution came around. The iceages were precipitated by warming periods and changing ocean currents. Anyone that argues polution is not damaging though IMO is an idiot. Of course it is. That being said however this planet has had mass extinctions before, and it WILL again. The Earth will shake off humanity like a bad case of the fleas, and that is probably unavoidable. We need to start looking for a new rock, and figure out long distance space travel otherwise we be f#@ked.

I am an asshole, but I am honest

[billvon 2,406]

>I don't think many people seriously doubt the planet is warming.

A lot of them do, actually. A lot of them post here.

>I think the debate lies in wether or not the warming is from polution.

Well, in general the debate is over whether increasing levels of CO2 is a primary cause. Most people don't consider CO2 pollution in the general sense since it's already a (minor) part of our atmosphere.

[davjohns 1]

I think most people can understand the planet follows cycles and we will always be somewhere in some cycle. It is reasonable to think that human activity is having an effect on the climate. The question is how much effect, what exactly is causing the effect, and how much of that the planet can naturally heal.

While I agree with a conservationist attitude (we only have one planet, afterall), there seems to be excess use of the issue to make money. That makes the legitimate issue look trumped up. Yelling more loudly that the sky is falling really doesn't help.

I'm living in Europe now. Seeing how they live here, I think the US could do much better. I think we use fossil fuels and other finite resources foolishly. I don't think the solution is to give money to people in the hopes that they will not waste it and will really come up with alternatives. However, taxing the fossil fuels to force the market to find economically alternative solutions might have some merit. Handing out money from the public treasury is deceptively easy. Paying every time you pump gas brings it home and spurs real change.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[CygnusX-1 42]

Quote

We need to start looking for a new rock, and figure out long distance space travel otherwise we be f#@ked.

Why? So we can f#@k over that new world? We move in, destroy the natural environment and then move on to the next one. We as a society need to change our philosophy first before we get the advances to traverse solar systems. Otherwise, the Matrix (Agent Smith) is right - we are a virus that needs to be exterminated.

[Skyrad 0]

I think its bloody obvious that the climate is getting warmer, that is undeniable. The only question is what is causing it.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

I think its bloody obvious that the climate is getting warmer, that is undeniable. The only question is what is causing it.

Pshhhhh...... Everyone knows Bush and Romney are causing it. After all, we all know Republicans want dirty air and water. Oh, and they want to kill your grandmother, too.

[kallend 1,635]

news.discovery.com/earth/no-global-warming-hasnt-stopped-121017.html

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Remster 24]

Quote

Quote

I think its bloody obvious that the climate is getting warmer, that is undeniable. The only question is what is causing it.

Pshhhhh...... Everyone knows Bush and Romney are causing it. After all, we all know Republicans want dirty air and water. Oh, and they want to kill your grandmother, too.

And Obama want you to walk to work. In the snow. Uphill. Both ways.

And I'm sure it was him who wanted the death panels to kill gram-ma...

Remster

[billvon 2,406]

>And Obama want you to walk to work. In the snow. Uphill. Both ways.

Where did you hear that? On your OBAMAPHONE?

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

>And Obama want you to walk to work. In the snow. Uphill. Both ways.

Where did you hear that? On your OBAMAPHONE?

Or his gramma-phone.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quote

I think its bloody obvious that the climate is getting warmer, that is undeniable. The only question is what is causing it.

Pshhhhh...... Everyone knows Bush and Romney are causing it. After all, we all know Republicans want dirty air and water. Oh, and they want to kill your grandmother, too.

you might be on to something there, the amount of hot air thats coming out of the Presidential candidates.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[airdvr 198]

Quote

Been travelling a bit to Europe...It is pretty unanimous that they truly believe

Well that seals it for me. If people in the EU say it's true it must be so. Do you suppose that your informal survey is a bit skewed by whom you keep as company?

I'm still waiting for someone whom I can trust, that has no skin in the game to convince me.

Hehe...gramma-phone. Funny.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

What is it about people who get outraged over a few billion $ on green projects, yet be indifferent in hundreds of billion of $ of damages worldwide in the past 3 years (anyone remember Russia's fire and agriculture crisis?).

First, it's silly to get upset over failed R&D around batteries and other new technologies. That ignores the reality of how progress is made, and how many of the technologies we use now got created. Many of these programs would have been within NASA 30-40 years ago when we were ok spending bundles of money to catch up and then pass the Ruskies.

But whenever someone tries to take a single event and tie it to global warming (or as proof it isn't there), that's politics, not science. Russia has had an agricultural crisis more often than Poland has been invaded. It's in a lousy position for agriculture. The funny thing is that global warming would likely improve their situation, just as the grain belt in the midwest may end up in Canada.

Mass fires and floods are not new either. Global warming might increase their frequency, but regardless of temperature, our tendency to clear cut some areas and prevent fires in others are significant factors in these larger events.

We could revisit the notion of global warming and hurricane frequency, a popular topic in the early part of the 2000s when Florida was beaten down more often than Poland gets invaded. But oddly enough, that reasoning vanished after a long long stretch of no hurricanes making landfall.

Or more succinctly put - weather != climate...unless it's convenient for your argument.

[EFS4LIFE 0]

Quote

Why? So we can f#@k over that new world? We move in, destroy the natural environment and then move on to the next one. We as a society need to change our philosophy first before we get the advances to traverse solar systems. Otherwise, the Matrix (Agent Smith) is right - we are a virus that needs to be exterminated.

Yes. Or do you actually think all of humanity is going to somehow magically change? Life itself IS a virus and we are a part of it. Viruses live within the cells of their host. The Earth is a cell, and we are a virus adapting within in. The difference is our cell as the ability wipe us out. I love the environment. I grew up playing in the woods, camping, and have always loved animals. Personally I have a conservationist attitude just like you, however I am not niave enough to think that every person on the planet is going to change. Just look at the course of human history, and all the fucked up stuff we have done. The population has continued at a extremely rapid growth that this planet can not contiue to support. Good luck on changing the ways of billions of people, let me know how that goes. The best thing that could happen is somehow harnessing an unlimited source of truly clean energy that could cheaply or freely be distributed globally. But just look at what they did to Tesla. No matter what is done, this planet will either kill us off or we will move on. There is no changing that. The dinosaurs were wiped out too, as we will be in the future, unless we get off this rock. May not happen in our lives, or our childrens, but it WILL happen. I personally hope humanity can find away to escape before then, but maybe it is for the best of the universe that we don't.

I am an asshole, but I am honest

[Stumpy 256]

Quote

Quote

Been travelling a bit to Europe...It is pretty unanimous that they truly believe

Well that seals it for me. If people in the EU say it's true it must be so. Do you suppose that your informal survey is a bit skewed by whom you keep as company?

I'm still waiting for someone whom I can trust, that has no skin in the game to convince me.

Hehe...gramma-phone. Funny.

I see your point however in Europe (and a lot of the rest of the world), there is way less skin in the game than the US, as politics is much less dependent on it. The "culture" of deniers just doesn't exist in the same way because there isn't the same right wing agenda to the same level. Science is understood for what it is rather than science vs religion.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[ShcShc11 0]

Quote

Quote

Been travelling a bit to Europe...It is pretty unanimous that they truly believe

Well that seals it for me. If people in the EU say it's true it must be so. Do you suppose that your informal survey is a bit skewed by whom you keep as company?

I'm still waiting for someone whom I can trust, that has no skin in the game to convince me.

Hehe...gramma-phone. Funny.

This topic has nothing to do with "surveys" or trying to convince you (there are other topics for that).

My question is: why are so many of us willing to ignore it as jibbrish when the consequences (esp economics) are so great?

As Bill said, it feels like a lot of people are treating it as a politics or taking it too personally- rather than making a marked effort to find the real truth.

[ShcShc11 0]

Quote

Russia has had an agricultural crisis more often than Poland has been invaded. It's in a lousy position for agriculture.

And this is what I mean.
People like to shrug it off as its natural.

http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Grain%20and%20Feed%20Annual_Moscow_Russian%20Federation_3-23-2011.pdf

Read it and look at the numbers. This wasn't a "normal" agricultural crisis.

Anyway.
Cheers

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Russia has had an agricultural crisis more often than Poland has been invaded. It's in a lousy position for agriculture.

And this is what I mean.
People like to shrug it off as its natural.

http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Grain%20and%20Feed%20Annual_Moscow_Russian%20Federation_3-23-2011.pdf

Read it and look at the numbers. This wasn't a "normal" agricultural crisis.

Anyway.
Cheers

Read what? Nothing there indicates this was a drought caused by global warming. The dust bowl of the 30s wasn't normal either, but it wasn't caused by GW. I live in a state that routinely has droughts (CA). The threat that GW would present is that the snowpack would likely be smaller, and thus we wouldn't have our storage of frozen water that is release in the spring and summer.

So again...how is this last Russian problem with food any different than the ones caused by 70+ years of communism? How is the drought we saw in the midwest this year different than all the other ones they've had before? Or in short, how do you know these aren't "natural?"

[headoverheels 291]

Quote

After all, we all know Republicans want dirty air and water. Oh, and they want to kill your grandmother, too.

My grandmother has been dead about 40 years, which is how far behind they are.

[brenthutch 384]

"Droughts, floods, hurricanes and other extreme weather cost the U.S. economy at least $55 billion in 2011, according to NOAA, with 14 separate events exceeding $1 billion. The devastating drought and associated wildfires in Texas and Oklahoma alone cost American crop farmers $7.6 billion and the cotton and cattle industries around $5.4 billion."

Accounting for inflation, population growth and development, there is less than nothing to report. BIG Insurance, wants to hype a few thunderstorms (or lack thereof) to justify big rises in premiums. Climate related disasters were much worse in the '20s and 30s. The drought was so devastating to US farm production that it was at record high, tornados at a record low, hurricanes at a record low.

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

>I don't think many people seriously doubt the planet is warming.

A lot of them do, actually. A lot of them post here.

>I think the debate lies in wether or not the warming is from polution.

Well, in general the debate is over whether increasing levels of CO2 is a primary cause. Most people don't consider CO2 pollution in the general sense since it's already a (minor) part of our atmosphere.

Actually, as Dav John said, most people believe that the earth DID warm for a period, but not the last 10 years or so. Which they believe is because the earth has always gone through warming and cooling cycles, and this is only part of that.

Many or most may also believe pollution or burning fossil fuels has had some effect on those cycles -- they don't believe, however, that the effect is enough to impose draconian new rules and change their standards of living for the small changes it may be making in the earth's natural cycles.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Are you absolutely 100% certain that global warming isin't/won't happen?

Nope. I'm fairly certain that it is. Thus far it's been marginal in size, scope and effect. I believe it will remain that way.

My wife is hotter than your wife.