Fix or Ignore - The Twin Prongs of the Climate Debate

[Sukerkin]

With the latest results on the state of the planets climate coming from the Berkley study recently, has the heat gone out of the debate so that the focus can be on what, if anything, we can do to preserve conditions largely suitable for our current population density? Or do we just ignore the rising tide, sing "I'm all right, Jack" and hope for the best as we flounder and bake?

Richard Black is the BBC's correspondant on environmental matters and here's his take on the matter of what is driving the temperature changes:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15400748

EDIT: The title should be "Fix or Ignore", not "Fix of Ignore" - finger trouble bought on by excessive warmth in the office .

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I read the results of the study with interest a few days ago. Unfortunately, it does not rescue me from my doubts, because I never doubted that that global warming was happening. I have only doubted whether it was primarily due to human agency, and likewise doubted whether or not humans have the ability to change it.

I have also noted that it would appear as an 'inconvenient truth' (sorry, had to do it) that what was shaping up to be a mini-ice age *may* have been pushed back a bit through this larger warming trend. In other words, the global warming was not all bad.

Unfortunately, the two topics ('Global Warming', also known as 'Climate Change', and 'AGW' or 'Anthropological Global Warming') are often conflated with each other; quite often is is a deliberate act. If one accepts Climate Change but doubts AGW, one is a 'Denier' who refuses to believe Climate Change is happening. Sigh.

So your thread is right on cue, although I am sure you did not mean it as a club over the head. The article says nothing about whether or not the now twice-confirmed global warming is human-caused, or whether or not man can do anything about it. But we still segue straight from the one into the other as if they were the same thing, don't we?

Imagine if some scientists proposed that there are more volcanoes recently, and that they are increasing. They further proposed that human activity caused these volcanoes. They finally supposed that mankind ought therefore do something about it. Despite the fact that all three things are volcano-centric, they are still in fact three completely different things. Are there more volcanoes now than in the past and are the numbers increasing? We can crunch numbers on that, and perhaps it is true. That does not say that humans caused them though, does it? And supposing that someone comes up with compelling evidence showing that yes, human are the cause of all the recent volcanoes, that does not demonstrate that we can do anything about it, does it? Still, if the science is sufficiently adopted as a political cause célèbre, any who dast gainsay the increase in volcanic activity, human agency in them, or that a cure can be devised, are tossed into the same pot and labeled 'Deniers'.

It does get a bit old, my friend.

Fix or ignore? I haven't a clue that we can 'fix' anything regarding Climate Change. I rather suspect that we haven't the power to affect weather on a global scale by intentional action. Even if we could, I sincerely doubt we have enough understanding of the global climate to 'fix' it without nudging it too much one way or another, causing catastrophes hitherto unseen. And not only do I fear mindless experimentation of this sort, I also do not wish to pay for it through taxes and radical mandated changes to my way of life. Imagine if some scientist devised a clever plan to set the world aright; it only involves setting off a hundred or so H-Bombs directly around the equator, and all should be well. Whee, let's embrace that; it will surely simply nudge our climate back into alignment without too much risk of say ending the world entirely, right?

We are so full of ourselves, aren't we? We broke the entire planet, we're that powerful. But we're so beneficent and our power so finely-tuned that we can also fix what we broke. I have trouble believing either of those.

 

[jks9199]

EDIT: The title should be "Fix or Ignore", not "Fix of Ignore" - finger trouble bought on by excessive warmth in the office .

Took care of that for you.

 

[Big Don]

My problem with the AGW "debate" (in quotes because believers in AGW don't debate at all, they just, as Bill mentioned, denounce people as "Deniers") has been the overwhelming presumption of it.

 

[Sukerkin]

I've ever been of the view that it is better to err on the side of caution and try to use our resources better and cause less pollution.

There is evidence in the ice records that even earlier, much smaller, civilisations were having effects on the global environment - the example that I tend to remember is the fallout from Roman lead production being found in polar ice layers.

Given that planet Earth's a system in dynamic equilibrium, with multiple heterodyning and de-interlacing cycles {yeah, sort of 'display technology' pun attack ... okay that ones rubbish I admit it }, then we do have to be careful not to make things worse with good intentions. But being more efficient and less polluting makes economic sense as well as environmental sense, if it's done with a measure of common sense at least.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I've ever been of the view that it is better to err on the side of caution and try to use our resources better and cause less pollution.

I do not have a problem with that in principle. The problem I have with it is that it generally involves countries like the UK and the USA being forced to make costly changes to manufacturing, whilst 'emerging nations' such as China (a huge polluter, I've been there) do not. This was the basis for the USA rejecting the Kyoto Accords, as I recall. I don't want to make the USA less competitive globally for the sake of someone feeling better about the dirt in the air.

There is evidence in the ice records that even earlier, much smaller, civilisations were having effects on the global environment - the example that I tend to remember is the fallout from Roman lead production being found in polar ice layers.

There's quite a difference between an effect and a systemic and permanent change.

Given that planet Earth's a system in dynamic equilibrium, with multiple heterodyning and de-interlacing cycles {yeah, sort of 'display technology' pun attack ... okay that ones rubbish I admit it }, then we do have to be careful not to make things worse with good intentions. But being more efficient and less polluting makes economic sense as well as environmental sense, if it's done with a measure of common sense at least.

Well, politics is involved. Common sense left town some time ago.

 

[cdunn]

I do not have a problem with that in principle. The problem I have with it is that it generally involves countries like the UK and the USA being forced to make costly changes to manufacturing, whilst 'emerging nations' such as China (a huge polluter, I've been there) do not. This was the basis for the USA rejecting the Kyoto Accords, as I recall. I don't want to make the USA less competitive globally for the sake of someone feeling better about the dirt in the air.

This is also short sighted, imho. The world's current economy is supply constricted by the availabilty of petroleum products - both the OPEC embargos and the spike in pricing a few summers ago should be plenty of evidence for this. The nations that pull away from the use of oil and coal first will be positioned to sprint ahead economically and militarily when we run into the wall that is peak oil... if we're not there already.

We have reached a point where every future long-term interest of the nation - ecological, economic, and military, is aligned in removing us from our dependance on fossil fuels, and we can't address it because it's opposed to entrenched interests and requires short term pain for long term gain.

 

[WC_lun]

As evidenced by recent economic actions, we as a whole prefer short term gains to actual long term solutions. We don't want to suffer short term pains, even if it means long term prosperity. We seem to be very short sighted, as a people.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

This is also short sighted, imho.

Of course it is short-sighted. In the long term, we're dead.

Seriously. Imagine someone tells me to live like a hermit for the rest of my life so that someone's great-grandkids can have clean air and water. I don't have kids. So the answer is no. I didn't break the planet, it was this way when I got here. And I'm not going to subject myself to great privation for some future generation that I have no stake in.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

As evidenced by recent economic actions, we as a whole prefer short term gains to actual long term solutions. We don't want to suffer short term pains, even if it means long term prosperity. We seem to be very short sighted, as a people.

So what?

 

[Empty Hands]

So what?

You may feel that wisdom and responsibility ends with your own comfort and presence but not everyone feels that way.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

You may feel that wisdom and responsibility ends with your own comfort and presence but not everyone feels that way.

That's true. The problem is when people who do not feel the way I do presume to force me to act the way they would prefer me to act.

 

[billc]

Not everyone feels like giving money to what could very likely be a scam, just to make some people feel better about themselves or superior to people who doubt man made global warming.

 

[Empty Hands]

That's true. The problem is when people who do not feel the way I do presume to force me to act the way they would prefer me to act.

That's democracy, baby. You may not give a damn if the fish all die because you hate eating fish or you may not care that schools are funded because you don't have kids, but most people do, and will ensure that the government acts in the long standing national interest to keep the fish going and fund education. If you go very far down this path, you end up with the "all government activity is at the point of a gun" crowd, and you don't want to hang with those guys. Government must balance many competing interests and act in the broad common interest, not in the interests of Bill Mattocks. Not until you get a few billion to your name, anyway.

 

[Empty Hands]

Not everyone feels like giving money to what could very likely be a scam, just to make some people feel better about themselves or superior to people who doubt man made global warming.

Government money spent of administering the smallpox and polio vaccines was a scam, a plot to lighten our wallets based on dubious science. Vaccines don't prevent disease. True fact. Scientists be lyin' and gettin' me pissed.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

That's democracy, baby. You may not give a damn if the fish all die because you hate eating fish or you may not care that schools are funded because you don't have kids, but most people do, and will ensure that the government acts in the long standing national interest to keep the fish going and fund education. If you go very far down this path, you end up with the "all government activity is at the point of a gun" crowd, and you don't want to hang with those guys. Government must balance many competing interests and act in the broad common interest, not in the interests of Bill Mattocks. Not until you get a few billion to your name, anyway.

And that's a good thing. Because remember, most are not in favor of this hoo-hah. So, it gets voted down and that's pretty much that. Democracy.

And you're right. I hate fish. They're too flat.

 

[Razor]

Of course it is short-sighted. In the long term, we're dead.

Seriously. Imagine someone tells me to live like a hermit for the rest of my life so that someone's great-grandkids can have clean air and water. I don't have kids. So the answer is no. I didn't break the planet, it was this way when I got here. And I'm not going to subject myself to great privation for some future generation that I have no stake in.

Not really a great comparison. Think about how industrialised nations have become industrialised. Essentially what you are saying is that Europe and the US et al. are allowed to do it, but other places aren't. Just because other nations have polluted the globe doesn't mean that places like China should not be allowed to develop; richer places can afford to pollute less, but developing countries cannot. It is sheer hypocrisy for industrialised nations to suggest that industrialising nations should not be allowed to economically develop because the former have already messed up the environment too much.

 

[Sukerkin]

Is that true, Bill? Not the bit about fish being to flat or the generalities of democratic decision making . Do American's in general really not think that they should be concerned about recycling, minimising resource wastage or constraining pollution?

 

[Flying Crane]

Is that true, Bill? Not the bit about fish being to flat or the generalities of democratic decision making . Do American's in general really not think that they should be concerned about recycling, minimising resource wastage or constraining pollution?

no, it is not true.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Not really a great comparison. Think about how industrialised nations have become industrialised. Essentially what you are saying is that Europe and the US et al. are allowed to do it, but other places aren't. Just because other nations have polluted the globe doesn't mean that places like China should not be allowed to develop; richer places can afford to pollute less, but developing countries cannot. It is sheer hypocrisy for industrialised nations to suggest that industrialising nations should not be allowed to economically develop because the former have already messed up the environment too much.

It's still saying that country A which has wealth and country B, which does not have wealth, should change places because country A has had their shot at it and country B has not. Time may cause country A to lose their wealth and country B to gain wealth, but to give it up voluntarily, because the people of country A have been greedy, short-sighted, and just plain evil? No way, buddy. Being a country A member, I can cheerfully say "Get stuffed." We may lose our economic advantages, but we're not giving them up voluntarily because we feel so bad for the poor, poor, planet.