I'm converting to treehuggeryFollow

I do suppose all that caring about global ecosystems does get in the way of cleaning up trash at local parks?

It's easier to get John Doe to get a damn about the trash in town which is making the place look ugly, than it is to get him to care about a scientific theory that is still primarily based on weak correlation.


I seem to recall this winter, that many portions of the world were hitting the lowest temperatures ever recorded. Of course, that is entirely irrelevant, and is not mutually exclusive with global warming. /shrug

Other than that, I agree with the rest of your post.

Which goes back to what I was saying. It's easier to get John Doe to care about alternative fuel sources because gasoline is pinching his wallet (Or because he doesn't want to give money to "lol Terrorists"), than it is to get him to care about it due to carbon emissions.

Edited, Jun 19th 2009 8:44am by Karelyn

Cow manure?

I don't understand why anyone would think they're fully independent.

Then your opinion means less than dirt. I'm sorry.

Oh I understand. You've probably seen plenty of stuff to support your claims. You might be totally right. It's just not possible to consider that as good evidence for whether or not someone should believe you.

You know there's also a huge difference between being skeptical and rejecting the hypothesis by claiming that you're skeptical. I'm not talking to you in particular either. It irks me when someone says that they actively think that global warming is a farce and claims that they are being skeptical. It's worse when someone cites an actual skeptic as a reason to disbelieve in the hypothesis...

This doesn't begin to consider the simply practical arguments for taking care of our planet by reducing pollution and increasing green space, global warming or not.

"Anthropogenic Climate Change!" It's catchy!



Edited, Jun 21st 2009 2:30am by trickybeck

Most of the measures designed to fight "Global Warming" are positive for the planet regardless of whether ACC is a reality.

What pisses me off in this debate is that most people are talking as though they have an understanding of what's going on. Let's all be honest for one moment: We don't. We're not climate scientist. Most of us have never read an IPCC report, nor will we understand the computer models. We can parrot what we heard from this or that scientist or website, but that's about it. If the most qualified scientists on the planet struggle to make accurate predictions and data anlysis, then I can't be anything but amused when I read gbaji screaming from the rooftops that Global warming is a "hoax". If it was simple enough for gbaji to understand, no one would be wasting time debating the subject.

I'm not ashamed to admit that I don't know enough about climate and science to have an informed opinion on the subject. I tend to trust the majority of claimte scientists and the IPCC. I don't buy the conspiracy claim for one second, but I don't know *for sure* the extent to which ACC will affect us.

But I think it's pretty irrelevant. "Global Warming" has managed to turn environmentalism from a fringe lunatic issue to a mainstream. I remember the 80s, and back then, people who harped on about protecting the planet and modufying our way of life were seen as unwashed stoned hippies who'd had too many acid trips. Today, most of the people care about the environment. If nothing else, Global Warming can claim that success, and it's a huge ************* success.

You complain that energy wasted on GB would be better placed on recycling, but the only reason why we put emphasis on recylcing is because of GB. If it wasn't for GB, the issue of the environment would be roughly on par with preserving the natural habitat of the lemur in terms of political importance. paulsol often talks about the damage that eating meat causes to the planet, well he can thank GB for making this such a topical issue today. The list is bloody endless, but even GB turns out to be fake, we will have done a hell of a lot of good to our planet in the meantime.

I support finding less polluting forms of energy, protecting wildlife, decreasing harmful emissions, recycling and preserving energy, eating more local produce and in-season vegetables, making transport more "green", having a carbon tax, preserving the rainforests, planting trees, not polluting the sea, all these things are beneficial and necessary regardless of whether GB is as dire as some people predict.

It's Pascal's Wager when it comes to changing behaviour which is harmful to the environment. We won't lose anything by doing it, and could potentially gain a lot, and we risk a hell of a lot by not doing it.

Every ? LOL

The "Debate" on Global Warming (or Climate Change) has actually re-opened the debate on whether "Consensus of Opinion" is Oxymoronic,redundant, or just plain inappropriate in a scientific context.

I practice green technology where I can, and have done more than most that I know to lower my toxic output.

But I still cant abide Eco-fascism, especially from hypocrites, like Al Gore and many of the "Celebrity Elite" activists.

Carbon offsets are a prime example of the myopic view of these folks... I mean apply the same reasoning to other social problems & see how it works.

A Rich Murderer can "Buy" a non-murder from someone....a rapist can "Buy" consent that offsets his crime.

A fraudulent,predatory lender can "Buy" his way out by paying money to a third party... sounds insane doesnt it ?

It has gotten bad, & I think a lot of people who resist the "Green Movement" do it for these reasons, not because they dont care or disagree with a clean Environment.

Especially harmful is when these folks want to impose their view on others who are just trying to survive.

I get scowled at for driving a Tahoe, but some asshat who flies in a private jet wants me to drive a Prius....not gonna happen.

& yes, a lot of people signed on to the "New Ice Age" in the 70's not to mention the "Population Bomb" that never went off & "Future Shock"

By the way, a lot of these same folks & institutuions signed on to Hitlers Eugenics too....

Yes.

There is a scientific consensus. You can choose to believe that the vast majority of agreeing experts in the field of climatology are wrong--that somehow you know more than they do--but you can not assert that there is no consensus.

Edited, Jun 23rd 2009 9:19am by Allegory

There are lots of thingies at work in all the various layers of our atmosphere. However, there are also some very straight forward scientific principles that can't be denied.

1. Stuff doesn't disappear. The oil is not in the ground, nor is it any longer in my gas tank. Where is it? Yes, it's true that burning a gallon of gas will yield nearly 20lbs of CO2

2. We've changed our earth system - we, human beings. to what extent is of course arguable. Bison were changing our local system before we arrived in the new land by converting grass to methane - to what effect? Who knows.. It's all a question of how much is too much?

4. The Greenhouse Effect - it's a proven scientific principle. Of course there are lots of confounding factors when attempting to apply it on a planetary scale, how much CO2 is being absorbed by the planet (sinks)? What is the impact of other gases and particulates? If the oceans are absorbing a greatly-gob of this CO2 how is that effecting the oceans? does that affect on the ocean play any part in weather patterns (our weather is driven mostly by the oceans and our orbit with respect to the sun and the moon) and therefore, indirectly, climate change?

5. We're burning about 3.5 billion gallons of oil a day (worldwide). And this is only oil - not inclusive of coal or natural gas. Again, where is it? There is no question that we are impacting our atmosphere. How much and in what direction are we affecting the atmosphere, the weather cycles, the oceans, the humidity, the climate is the question?

There will always be gbajiers making the claim that there is no proof that climate change is, at all, due to human activity, as we don't have climate data going back 4.6 billion years (~the age of the oldest dated rocks). Therefore they will never be convinced.

But the evidence is rolling in all over the place that climate change IS happening. What's disturbing is predications are trending towards worse-case.

I don't know if cap and trade is the answer, but equating it to criminal behavior and our justice system is silliness. If emission free air is a quantifiable resource then it has a value that can be converted to currency. Theoretically the barter system should work. What's questionable is how much and how soon it will actually reduce emissions and how exploitable the system will be by industry.

Personally I think a straight-forward tax on the use of fossil fuels would work more efficiently and fairly but would be far less palatable to the masses.

Should be a piece of cake to show us one of these predictions.