Strange Famous

If not, what do you consider to be of greater importance... and how far do you think climate change would need to go for you to consider it an issue beyond any other.

In my opinion the end of oil in itself is a grave crisis certainly; but I would consider climate change presently to be more important than national sovereignty.

If the World, the UN and its superpowers, consider it justified to sieze control of Afghanistan because of acts of terror and the local supression of human rights, I would certainly consider it MORE justified to sieze control of a rouge state which would not address the issues of carbon pollution.

I see that the world is on the verge of a crisis that will cost maybe 1 or 2 billion lives if not checked, and is already too far gone for us not to pay a price: that is to say a crisis of roughly equal human cost to a limited atomic war being two continents. I find it amazing that in mainstream politics environmental issues are still sidelined by economics, nationalism, health care.

I do not know if people do not believe that the world WILL get maybe 5 degree's C hotter, I do not know if people do not believe that parts of this earth will become too hot for human habitation, that tropical diseases will wreak utter devastation on unprepared populations, that food will run out, that energy will radically under-supplied. I do not know if these things seem to distant too care about, or another generations problem. Or if people simply dont think about it?

Many people pay lip service to green ideals, but very few are willing to pay a real material cost to reduce carbon emmissions.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Willravel

Education always trumps everything. It's the key to every single other issue. With proper education, we wouldn't have people thinking the second coming of Christ should factor in to long term energy and environmental policy and we wouldn't have obtuse economists suggesting that the market will fix any and every problem before the consequences reach the public.

Hektore

I agree that education is the most important, however, I think more than a tad naive to think that simple giving everyone the tools to develop an informed opinion is going to magic them all into agreeing on how to solve problems, or whether or not (in the case of 'climate change' for one example) there even is a problem. Also, I don't see how simply giving someone an education will make them forget about their religious beliefs. There are plenty of religious folks who are educated.

Really? '...' Really? I think treating the 'global climate crisis' as though it's import was above that of national or personal sovereignty as jumping the gun. I'll use another crisis that we know a bit more certainly is coming in the future.

The sun isn't going to last forever. When it goes, so does the habitability of this rock we're riding on, if it doesn't go sooner (Desert Earth). Why isn't anyone raising a ruckus about this? It is coming, and there are finite resources to deal with the problem. We have a lot more learning to do down here before we could possibly undertake interstellar travel. Yet, nothing is done-no one really seems to care. It's our children that are going to be affected and yet we do nothing. Think of all the resources we piss away on 'entertainment' when we have this huge looming crisis that may not be avertable without our absolute maximal effort.

Which brings me to my real point - sooner or later, we (humanity) are space dust, the same space dust we're made out of only more spread out. Forfeiting principles or sovereignty because of 'future generations' well being seems a bit silly - we can't do it. We will never be able to indefinitely support humanity, or life really. We may be able to prolong it, which may be a worthy goal. But a real examination of how we want to live life in the meantime needs to take place first.

For my money? I'm on the side of personal liberty. It's about quality of life vs. quantity of life, no different that personal end of life issues. The only difference is it's the end of our life as a species rather than a person. What right have I to make that decision for all potential life out there? None whatsoever- but it is a decision I have to make thanks to fate. (Note the parallels between this and contraception/abortion right to life issue). Personal liberty and equality are goals we can obtain, and we should work towards them, to sacrifice these for some temporary extension on presence, doesn't seem worthwhile to me.

__________________
The advantage law is the best law in rugby, because it lets you ignore all the others for the good of the game.

Willravel

I'm afraid you've misunderstood what I posted.

I'm fine with opinions, so long as one can defend that opinion based on fact and deduction. Ustwo several times made a decent case for climate change being overblown, but he didn't use appeals to emotion or strawmen in order to do it. He used fact and deduction. One learns to seek out fact regardless of belief or ideology in school and by parents; education.

I don't care about people being religious, and I don't care if they think Jesus will return in their lifetime, it's education that teaches things like critical thinking which would keep a person that believes Jesus will return soon from planning based on that belief. It's about developing the ability to question one's self and others, using deductive reasoning, and planning contingencies.

Education is the genesis of progress. It's like the foundation upon which understanding is built. Without it, we can't hope to solve problems. Sure, it's not the end-all be-all, but it's a necessary ingredient.

Hektore

Fair enough.

Thank you for clarifying.

__________________
The advantage law is the best law in rugby, because it lets you ignore all the others for the good of the game.

Seaver

Global Climate Change and Manmade Global Climate Change are two very different things. We have proof that the entire world was engulfed in ice, with no help of man. We have proof that England grew better wine than France due to climate change with no help of man (I read the passages of French Wineries complaining about the fact).

We have no predictions of climate change which have come true. Hurricanes have decreased despite massive cries that they would only become worse. Ice in the Antarctic has actually progressed in the past 10 years, despite claims of the opposite.

Sorry, I'm not going to give up my national sovereignty based on these findings. I'm not saying Manmade Global Warming is flat-out false, I just have justifiable reason to resist any massive economic and political changes based on what I've found.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

Bear Cub

You and the majority of the rational engineering community.

__________________
Living in the United Socialist States of America.

pan6467

This issue is to do 2 things, IMHO.

1) As the OP kinda points out, take focus off the real issue which is a global economic meltdown that will cost many lives.

2) Make some people VERY VERY wealthy.

We cannot control sunspots, the Earth's movement and nature herself. I'm sure we are not helping polluting the ground waters, killing off animals, destroying rainforests.... but man is adaptable, we have survived many things throughout history. We have evidence that species long thought extinct or endangered do find ways of coming back, so plants and animals are just as adaptable. Think evolution.... I know it's a bad word for theists and for libs, they embrace it until this topic comes up, hypocrites that we can be. We have no proof, just theory, that there is any man made global warming. Africa at one time was as rich and fruitful as South America.... how did it become mostly desert BEFORE industrialization?

Temps increase and decrease with no rationale because we are NOT in control. And therein lies the biggest problem.... MAN'S ego does not want to believe we are not in control of this planet's destiny. NATURE is.

This whole issue reminds me of the history we hear of how tribes believed sacrificing virgins to Gods or the great steaming mountain would change weather patterns or yield better crops. It was bunk and mythology now but it was man BELIEVING he could change nature. We are in effect doing the same thing today... just instead of superstition and some theistic BS, we are saying it is "Scientific" and so on.

BS is BS.... but some times people sell BS as fact so they can make lots of money and take focus off what truly matters.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Seaver

Pan... I remember when I thought of you as a liberal .

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

rahl

I never could understand the argument over Climate. Climate changes are measured in hundreds if not thousands of years. From the industrial revolution to the present is a mere microsecond in terms of climate. Are we affecting the climate currently? of course. Is it measureable or significant? That question will take several hundred years to have any significant meaning.

Martian

Regarding the increasing scarcity of oil, that's not something anyone really needs to lose sleep over. Think of it as an economic issue: right now oil and other fossil fuels are still (relatively) cheap. Because of this, it's simply not cost effective to put a lot of money and effort into developing viable alternatives. However, as oil supplies dwindle and the cost rises, developing alternatives becomes more viable. The one who develops a simple and effective alternative to oil is going to make billions, so long as that product hits the market at the right time.

And for anthropogenic climate change, I've always been a sceptic. Yes, the Earth's climate is changing. It always has been; history shows us that global climate is not a particularly stable system. Whether this change is significant, I make no claims to know. However, I find it hard to believe without further proof that in a system as massively complex as the Earth's global climate any one cause could be singled out for anything. Anthropogenic climate change may be true or it may not be, but the IPCC strikes me more as a political body than anything.

I have expressed these views before. What I find interesting now is that even with Ustwo gone, there seems to be far more support for my side of the fence. Is this a reflection of changing demographics on TFP, or changing minds amongst the general public?

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

ASU2003

The end of cheap oil is what I fear. If it weren't for OPEC (who we only can guess at how much oil reserves they have), and our subsidizing the military to secure the flow of that cheap oil, we would have a problem. I will pay $6-$10/gallon for gas, but will have to drastically reduce my spending in other areas. As will many other people. And it will create economic hardship across the country very similar to what the $4/gas did last summer.

We may be a few years off from that though. There are 30 billion barrels (4 years world wide) at the north pole, which may be recoverable if the ice cap melts, although not pleasant for the workers up there. There is ANWR, which should be kept as a reserve so when the world drys up, we still can pump some.

And there is always the chance that something major like 'cold fusion' or radiation batteries will be invented that will remove the need for 70%+ of the oil.



I saw thisa few day ago on-line, and I agree with it. There is so much crap in the air and water that shouldn't be there, it is the major problem. And yes, I view CO2 as a pollutant because I can't breathe it. The bad thing is that there are way too many people on the planet using up too many CO2->O2 converting plants and trees to keep up.

The Earth doesn't care if it warms up by 10 degrees (natural or man-made), the humans living in certain areas will. The thing we need to focus on is how to ensure that people will still have clean water and be able to grow food if the glaciers and aquifers dry up.

ottopilot

If greenhouse gases (if you feel like including CO2) are your largest concern, then focus on the largest contributor. Fossil fuels are (by far) not the largest generator of greenhouse gases.

__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

Willravel

That's not how it works. Long before us puny humans came along, there was a relative balance of greenhouse gasses. Some greenhouse gasses are necessary, you see, and throughout the history of our planet life has adapted to deal with the various climates that have come and gone. The changes in climate before the industrial revolution were quite slow, taking thousands of years or more. If the next climate change took 3600 years, humans would likely have time to adapt as necessary.

The problem is when the cycle is artificially changed. We don't know if the introduction of gasses like CO2 from artificial sources will speed up any change. If we only have 150 years to deal with a change of a dozen degrees, we could face a global catastrophe. I think we can agree it would be bad if a third of the population of the planet died in the course of maybe 40 years because we can't either supply necessary heat or relocation to everything north of Oklahoma and Turkey. And that's not alarmist because it falls in line with several of the worst-case scenarios being put fourth by real experts in the field.

pan6467

And there are "real experts" that say global warming is BS. So who's right? Hell, weathermen can't even truly get 1 week accurate but we're supposed to be able to dictate to the world that we are doomed because of greenhouse gases emitted from our cars?

Let's see what were the temps around the world 500 years ago and let's compare them to now. Let's go 100 years.

I'm looking here: Canton - Ohio Weather Forecast on Yahoo! Weather

In Canton Ohio the high temp records for the months of Jan (1906), Mar (1910), April (1915), July (1936), August (1918), Oct (1927) were all set before WW2. Sept (1953) Nov (1961) were before I was born (& after WW2) and only 1 record high was set in this decade (Feb. 2000).

6 record high temps before WW2, 2 before I was born in 1967 but after WW2, 2 in the 80's (1982, 1988), 1 in the 1990's (1991) and 1 this decade..... We have not had a record high temp in a month in 8 years, have to go back 17 for the next one and 20 before that. We're burning up now.

Then let's look at when the highest temps ever were in this area: in 1918, and 1936..... yeah.....

Now let's go by just April's dailies.... there were more record high temps (15) before and during WW2 (2) than in the period after. Only 6 days registered record high temps in this decade same as the 70's and 80's combined set.

Just the opposite for record lows.... 13 days before WW2 and during, 17 days recorded record lows after WW2 with 1 in this decade, 3 in the 90's, and 8 record lows in the 70's and 80's.

So if that shows anything it shows that maybe the temps are getting cooler on average.

It's all ego BS, "we are in control of the environment".... BS. We're one meteor away from annihilation, and I believe THAT is far more likely than man made global warming destroying the Earth.

But it sells papers, makes people feel they can control the planet and nature and makes some people very rich while it takes focus off far more serious things people can control by voting out corrupt politicians and seeing what agendas are truly getting by us while the focus is elsewhere.

You want to save the world, demand our government and the UN clean our water, put better safety standards on food products, build better schools, find ways to improve poverty stricken nations, find ways to help starving countries irrigate and farm their lands better..... there are far more important issues than this one to help people and save the world.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Tully Mars

A day or two of high or low temps doesn't prove anything, it's worthless data.

Over all the temp of the earth is rising and it's picking up speed. The ice caps are melting. All the ice (that's not floating) will increase sea levels world round.

Doesn't seem to be a debatable issue to me at this point. We can see the ice melting. I guess you could debate why they're melting... quickly.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

Nimetic

This is quite simply not feasible.

Firstly - to the best of my knowledge, the highest per-capita polluters are western countries such as the US and Australia. Ignoring the latter, can you really imagine the developing world taking on the US here?

Second reason... It seems likely that the environmental cost of war (unless it is a very small scale one) may be quite high. So best to avoid that IMHO.

rahl

It's worthless date in the sense that you can't measure climate in any way except over a period of hundreds of years. I don't care if there were record highs every day for a decade, that means nothing. The Earth may be warming up a bit and the ice shelves melting, but the debate is over natur or man made. There hasn't been nearly enough time for us humans to have affected the climate in any measureable way. After a few hundred years, then we will have some idea whether we have or not

Aladdin Sane

I am not worried at all about "the end of oil" or anthropomorphic climate Change. Greater examples of human hubris you will not find.

Both issues are canards that serve as a place of battle between the competing ideologies of individualism and statism. The outcome of that battle is what worries me.

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

ASU2003

In a hundred years, we might be living in Alaska, Russia, Canada and Greenland. But how many people would die out if climate change happens in 10 years instead of 100? We wouldn't be able to build enough infrastructure to feed and house a billion people up there. The other possibility is that places like Ohio would have our summer temps during Nov-April. The rest of the year might turn this place into a desert, but we could still grow food here. But that would be a really bad situation and I'm not sure if anything like that would happen. But if it did, we would have to worry about having enough plant material producing O2 for use to breathe (if everything from 45 degrees latitude N to S became a desert).

It doesn't matter if it is Sun spots that increase temperatures, mega volcanoes, or CO2 emissions (breathing or burning fossil fuels) from man. The Sun spots have been down in the past few years, but the 11 year or so cycle is starting up again. The worry I have is what if CO2 acts as a multiplier. As well as the fact that liquid water absorbs a lot more solar energy than white snow and ice. And the melting fresh water will be 'lost' when mixed with salt water.

Seaver

Um... research what makes deserts. Temperature is NOT the major factor. The likelihood of Ohio facing desertification through manmade temperature increase is effectively 0.

For a desert to appear in Ohio, Rocky size Mountain Chains must spark up north of the Great Lakes cutting off the winds which blow the cold air south sparking a rise in moist-warm air which results in rain/snow. Increase in temperature would facilitate an increase in warm-moist air and result in more percipitation and an increase in plant growth. Hell, it might even result in large truck forests such as Washington/Oregon.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

ASU2003

I fear that an increased temperature would cause water vapor to not create as much rain, or cause the jet stream to shift. Either one wouldn't be too good. It would either be really humid and the wind would blow all of the moisture away from the Midwest (maybe not Michigan and Ohio because of the Great Lakes). And the trees here are dying or getting cut down much faster than they are being replaced, and even if they were replaced, it takes 40-70 years for trees to grow big enough to be a normal forest.

The other possibility is that the level of pollution from Asia and elsewhere would cause acid rain to fall in greater acidity levels than it is already. If the rain is poison, all of the trees and smaller plants die off. Farms might be able to counter this with watering from the aquifer or the local lakes, but I'm not sure how many of them would be able to switch quickly if something happened that they couldn't get water from those sources. And with all the dry dead plant material, forest fires would be an issue.

And a simple heat wave, with farmers not planting crops that could handle drought conditions (an not having the modern watering capabilities), and a lack of trees to stop the wind caused the dust bowl in the 30s. And just because we can get water from other sources today to grow food in the Midwest if another heat wave and drought comes, doesn't mean that it will always be the case or as easy as it is today.

1936 North American heat wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seaver

Once again that ignores the macro-climate conditions which cause desertification. Increase heat causes increase in evaporation and increase in updrafts. These updrafts of saturated air cause a cycle over the region which results in percipitation directly over the region and builds upon itself to create saturated environments such as old growth or rain forests. Fear of shifting trade winds is relatively moot, as these are rarely altered for anything other than shifts in the axis degree of the entire planet.

Desertification by farming is a sufficient fear, however have nothing to do with global climate change and only macro climate changes with poor planning of agriculture. It's a sufficient fear, but again are on different planes. In addition, it would not be permanent as the major winds will always carry cold air south which pushes up the warm-saturated air and results in great spring rain and plenty of snow over the winter to melt.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

flstf

Having watched glaciers in the northwest shrinking over the last 20 years it is obvious to me that the earth is warming up and/or there has been some change in weather patterns. It is not obvious to me that there is anything we can do about it. So the answer to the OP is no, I do not think this is the most vital political question but it is an important one. Especially if polititians spend trillions of dollars on a climate cycle which we cannot change.

ottopilot

Without taking in account endless unpredicted natural phenomena and pure random catastrophic events on this Earth since time began (earthquakes, plagues, volcanoes, asteroids, leisure suits, etc.), we shouldn't let our collective human intellectual vanity cloud our judgment and act without understanding the long term cause and effect of any solution. We can barely predict a thunderstorm with pinpoint accuracy, however I do know better than to live below sea-level.

Be prudent in our stewardship of the planet and don't let politics and finance drive science. The popular villains and saviors tend to conveniently ignore the 800 lb. gorillas in the living room to promote a cause.

__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

Tully Mars

No, you can measure climate change in 20 years.




This is one of those things like if you don't believe in in hell you'd better be right.

What's the real harm of taking this seriously and trying to change our behavior?

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

rahl

It's graphs like these that fuel this argument. What exactly is it that I'm looking at here, is it a temperature increase? if so what is your point? A slow rise in temperature over a 20 year period doesn't mean much.

Seaver

I always hated that graph. Look, educate yourself on what is the beginning of that time period. It was called the "Little Ice Age" for a reason. People were walking accross New York harbor. There was even a "year without a summer.".

If you use a mini-ice age of course our average will go up in comparison.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

YaWhateva

so the 'Little Ice Age' ended around 1980? because that's where the sharpest increase in that graph that you hate occurred. Oh wait, the 'Little Ice Age' started to end at around 1850-1900 when the climate began to warm back up. The rise in the graph is very small from 1880 to 1980 (~0.2) when compared to the sharp rise from 1980 to 2000 (~0.6) so please, the 'Little Ice Age' has little to do with this graph and it hardly skews the graph at all. The most important part of that graph is from 1980-2000.

__________________
“If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again.” - Bill O'Reilly

"This is my United States of Whateva!"

Strange Famous

Well, you will always find someone to argue against anything... I myself am often such a person, but the fact is that nearly all of the expert opinion and nearly all of the data is saying that mankind is influancing climate change. As someone else stated, saying "it might not be true" is fine, but wont do anyone any good when the North Pole is in open water....

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

ASU2003

Actually, The US, Canada, Denmark and Russia are trying to stake a claim to the oil that is supposed to be under the ice off the coast. I'm not quite sure how much would be up there (I've heard 30 billion barrels), but that will just add to the problem when that is consumed.

And I know I wouldn't want that job up there for months at a time.

Seaver

Hard claim to make. It's equally possible that it creates a surge in productive, plant-ready land which could spring forth an abundance of new agriculture-ready land and help spread forests hundreds of miles north creating a boom in protected habitat for species which are currently running out of room. This taken from the supercomputer calculations lodged right up my own ass.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

Tully Mars

Increase in sea levels probably won't result in more farm land.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

Seaver

Most farm land is not within 15 feet of the ocean, however melting of the northern caps would turn the entire of upper Canada into pretty fertile ground.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

Tully Mars

I think your wrong but I'd be interested in seeing studies that back up your position.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

Baraka_Guru

Much of Canada's north is covered in what they call the Canadian Shield: areas of glacial rock, dense course soil, bogs, and marsh. Ridding of the permafrost won't solve the problem of much of the area's soil being unable to retain moisture.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Tully Mars

Some geologist from an oil company I met a few years back used the term Karst topography. According to him the geology of the Yucatan and northern Canada have a lot of things in common. Fertile soil isn't one of them.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

Seaver

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

Tully Mars

I don't need to see the data... I'll take your word for it.

But for some reason reading these last few posts has made that scene from "The Life Brian" pop in my head. You know the one where they're all nailed to crosses and whistling "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life."

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club