tzor wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:tzor wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Before I tackle the rest any further, exactly what is it that you see challenges Global Climate change. The report I was talking about, where the time it would take the Himalayan Glaciers to disappear was wrong, was due to a flat error that should have been caught, but wasn't. Nothing in that report really truly challenged Climate change theories.
(Note:
I was writing my response when I lost my internet connection; a long story short the wrong window appeared at the wrong time and I lost my train of thought as well. I’m a write once sort of person. That is what I am. But I will try to do my best to recreate my argument again.)
First and foremost, we need to understand that climate change occurs on a local and global level all the time and that both natural and man made factors influence that change. The first question is the potential problem of a “tipping point” a change in climate that is irreversible and would be the end of all life as we know and love it.
You are confusing 3 different issues here.
First, the climate of Earth IS changing. That is a fact. It is changing in ways that will harm humans. That is also a fact.
The second issue is whether human being are contributing to this change. This is mostly considered true. Many, many things we have done and are doing impact our earth's climate. We understand enough to know this is happening, but not to understand all the ramifications of this. That is where the debate lies .. first, in exactly what the changes will be and the exact impact we are having. Even so, in a broad sense we do know that adding "greenhouse gases" (shorthand for what I know are some very complicated things) is making things bad for human beings in most areas. (with help to a few other areas).
The third issue is what we can and should do about it. This is where the heaviest debate lies. However, most of the debate lies not in the technology, it is on whether we should pay more attention to the short-term economics. Unfortunately, too many people wish to deny that ALL Economics is necessarily "short term" ... even 20 years is not long when considering climate, but it is more than any economic projection can possibly predict... even 2 year predictions have a very, very low accuracy rate. So, basically, a lot of people with a lot of money can "out shout" all science in this matter, because too few people have the time, energy and knowledge to look into the real issues.
I am not confusing the three issues. Each issue is important. It’s like a three ring circus in which each ring has something important at the same time; only in this case it is a three ring debate.
Issue 1: I’m going to disagree with you on the “fact” that climate change will “harm humans.” Things can often harm some people and help other people. Climate change is like that.
In this case, we are talking about a complete disruption of the world's economy. Many civilizations completely collapsed for lessor reasons. And it was by no means and easy process. It might not mean the end of human beings on Earth, but it will mean pretty universal harm. Even if some areas recieve benefits, we are so interconnected that the extreme negative impacts will escape no one. This was not always true, but it is now.
tzor wrote:Issue 1A: It’s little comfort when you know you have been spared of climate change and an earthquake sends a title wave and wipes out your island instead.
True and irrelevant, but timely. (lol)
tzor wrote:Issue 2: Human beings contribute to this change. That is a fact. The interesting point is that human beings contribute randomly to this change. Early and mid 20th century aerosol use possibly contributed to the cooling of global temperatures and brought the fears of an upcoming ice age in the early 70’s. (One of the problems of talking about climate change is that mankind as a whole loves the “OMG we are going to DIE!” We have been doing this since the dawn of recorded history.)
Again, you rather confuse what common media, etc say and what scientists say. Newspapers like to print "we are going to DIE". Scientists... are more cautious. Scientists today are far more cautious than in the past, even. As for the aerosol cans bit, it did cause harm. The harm was not cooling, it was depletion of the Ozone. It happened. It has been slowed. The most common harm I heard was increase of skin cancer, etc. That is, in fact, what has happened. You are far more likely to contract skin cancer today than in the past. I have no idea where you got the cooling bit, but I have no doubt that someone, somewhere (perhaps even a scientist) said it.
tzor wrote:Issue 2A: Human beings contribute to a whole lot of other things that are more important than just climate change. If you really want to triage human activity to see what needs to be changed in the short and long term you have to look at the whole picture. Solving one problem can lead to causing another problem. Poorly designed wind turbines can kill migratory birds; poorly designed water power systems can kill migratory aquatic life. Don’t even get me started on nuclear power.
No, they are not really seperate issues at all. I agree about the wind power issues. However, the real problem is a complete and utter lack of sustainability in all things.
Its pretty ironic. Folks complain about the "poor predictive ability" of climate science. Yet, those same people will quickly drop to economics and "we cannot do this because the economics won't work". Economics has maybe a 10% accuracy rate past a few years. YET we are supposed to bow to those economic models instead of paying attention to the impacts of everything on our environment. THAT is the problem.
tzor wrote:Issue 3: Short term economics are critical. That is really how you solve long term problems, not the other way around. In the end of the 19th century there was a massive pollution problem in high technology urban centers. It took a man with a short term economic plan to solve that problem. What was the problem? Horse Manure! Who was that man? Henry Ford!
You skipped quite a few steps in there.
To begin, Henry Ford did not invent the automobile, he made use of assembly lines and decent worker pay. We lost horse manure, which did spread disease, but was also biodegradable. We lost horses, HUGE numbers of horse and the whole industry of supply there. These were replaced by smog from exhaust (now much cleaner than it was), reliance upon gasoline and all the mess it entails... etc. We also got increased pollution from the paints, aesbestos for brakes, etc., etc, etc.
In short, Henry Ford did not really solve a pollution problem, he created one.
I fully realize you were being half facetious. Nor am I actually saying to forget economics. No, we cannot. What I am saying is that we cannot let economics dictate everything else. We cannot let short term economic gains, no matter how great they seem, allow us to destroy the system of life upon which we depend.
In that, I am talking about far, far more than climate change. However, climate change is one big piece of the problem that we must fix.
Ironically enough, if we do fix the other problems ... deforestation, soil erosion, over-fishing, soil depletion, water shortages, etc... then we will go a long way toward fixing climate change. There are some trade-offs and they must be tackled, but if you want to see the harm in paying attention to short term economic gains that necessarily benefit only a few versus long term economic gains that always benefit a good many, then just look at our 10% unemployment rate.
tzor wrote:Issue 3A: Isn’t this the problem? Short term economics are literally driving the process! Follow the money! Follow the money on the side for climate change and follow the money on the side against climate change! It should be the science, but it isn’t.
On this we agree. Science should rule, but is not.
tzor wrote:One last point since I didn’t want to extend the thread too far with a point by point rebuttal. Why are there no more large dinosaurs? It’s called evolution. Dinosaurs were nice and large and they were all the rage when the planet’s oxygen level was being pumped up by lots of volcanoes above the surface of the planet, but when it cooled down they lacked the one thing that would have kept those energizer bunnies going; a diaphragm. Large dinosaurs began to decline well before the asteroid impact; that was merely the coup de grace.
No. First, there were many die-offs, not just that one. And the things you mention are part of what is thought might have happened, but not the whole picture. I won't get into that here, either.
But, the thing is, I just don't want to evolve. Or rather, if we are... we will. But it is not our task to sit back and say "oh, that's OK, it doesn't matter if humans die off and cockroaches inherit the earth, it was just evolution! I believe most humans would prefer we did not experience a huge die-off. That is what we are trying to avoid!
