Global warming

[corduroygt]

So you don't care if your actions affect other people? So I suppose driving drunk is okay, right? I mean, what do you care if someone else gets hurt? It's their fault for being in your away.

If everybody drove drunk, you'd have a point.
Pretty much everyone in my community drives, and a lot of them drive for far longer distances than me or they drive far less efficient cars than mine. Even the ecoweenies don't really care about the environment when it's too inconvenient for them.
If Al Gore can have a clean conscience with his massive carbon footprint, so can I.

 

[corduroygt]

African droughts would only be a problem for you if you happen to want to eat. It would drive the price of your food up.

Not going to worry about things that won't have any significant effects in my lifetime though...

 

[hoho]

Well I'm going by links given to me here, which shows a majority of the Earth will warm up. Of course it's more complicated than that, but according to the leading experts, we'll have more land that's warmer than now.

What will happen to all the farmland that even today already needs extensive watering to be of any use?

Not going to worry about things that won't have any significant effects in my lifetime though...

Not quite connected to global warming but you can be quite sure there WILL be major changes in pretty much everyone's lives once the real economic crisis hits. The thing we've had in past few years is just warmup. I predict this will happen within next 5-10 years, possibly much sooner

 

[Grall]

I predict this will happen within next 5-10 years, possibly much sooner

You know what happened to the last person who made dire predictions over a short time span in this forum...

IE: dire things probably won't happen soon. Which is a shame really, because the only time humanity gets off its ass and really gets stuff accomplished is after a damn good kick in it.

 

[Ty]

Well I'm going by links given to me here, which shows a majority of the Earth will warm up. Of course it's more complicated than that, but according to the leading experts, we'll have more land that's warmer than now.

No. My point wasn't that those sections would warm up, it was the overly simplistic view that warmer = better for the world overall.

Of course! I agree with you 100%. For example I am financially motivated to deny AGW. I'd rather have more money than save someone I don't know in Africa/Asia, and I am not an extra heartless anomaly, most people are like that when it comes down to it.

Let's "pretend" that AGW is a problem. Would you feel the least bit responsible then?

 

[corduroygt]

Let's "pretend" that AGW is a problem. Would you feel the least bit responsible then?

I'll join in after it becomes socially unacceptable to have a high carbon footprint.

 

[Ty]

I'll join in after it becomes socially unacceptable to have a high carbon footprint.

That's not what I asked though. I asked about whether or not you'd feel responsible for causing AGW.

 

[corduroygt]

That's not what I asked though. I asked about whether or not you'd feel responsible for causing AGW.

If the millions of more people who have far bigger carbon footprints compared to me felt responsible, then so would I.

 

[KimB]

Remember how I mentioned higher food prices? Turns out that's basically happening right now:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/opinion/07krugman.html

Basically: global warming + usually somewhat disruptive weather pattern (La Nina) = highly disruptive weather pattern. And this will just become more common.

 

[Squilliam]

Remember how I mentioned higher food prices? Turns out that's basically happening right now:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/opinion/07krugman.html

Basically: global warming + usually somewhat disruptive weather pattern (La Nina) = highly disruptive weather pattern. And this will just become more common.

So essentially this is all your fault?

Anyway I wonder if global climate change will kill economic stability in the developing world especially which will make actual attempts to combat it ever more difficult. Will we see numerous failed states if the world has an especially bad year for food production? Perhaps even a regression of several of the rapidly improving African and Asian nations. The rising global population certainly doesn't help.

So "if" we are in a world where food production can only feed 6B people at a high price and trying to feed 7B what happens? How can we even protect the rainforests of the Congo and Amazon basins if desperate people cut them down in order to grow more food?

 

[Frank]

Fine. But in case you didn't notice, humans are not the planet. Life on Earth will adapt to whatever changes we make. Granted, millions of species will go extinct in the interim, but the adaptation will come.

This doesn't, however, mean that humans won't have a very hard time with the changes that occur as a result of climate change. Because we will. There really isn't any significant doubt about this any longer: the effects of human-caused climate change are significant and painful for humans.


Pretty sure that isn't remotely true.

And I was under the impression, that humans are definitely the best at adapting to changes, by a large margin!

Unless you're a conservative, of course. They abhor any change.

 

[Frank]

What does it matter? The change is towards warmer temperatures.

Edit: Here I imagine you looking at some flood victims drowning, nodding your head sagely and stating, "You know what? It's worse to die in fire than it is to drown."

I would look at people being able to survive in the tropics without anything, even clothes, and the difficulty of surviving in the Arctic, even with lots of equipment. As I said, the amount of people living in the tropics is many magnitudes higher than the ones living on the polar regions. And they're often too poor to buy or make anything.

 

[Frank]

Well, this doesn't appear to be the case. The model where this happens involves the shutdown of the gulf stream. This shutdown is proposed to happen as a result of changes in the salinity of the water. If the upper levels of the ocean become less salty than the deeper levels, it can kill the forces that keep the gulf stream going.

The problem is that ocean water does tend to mix over time, so to get the required salinity change, you have to dump a huge amount of fresh water into the ocean in a very short time. For example, you could do this if all of Greenland were to melt instantly. But this is highly, highly unlikely, so it's more probable that Europe will continue to warm up as it has been.

That said, it is true that some areas are expected to get somewhat cooler, but the vast majority of areas are going to be getting warmer.

Then again, it's exactly the prediction from the AGW crowd since the last few years. Your initial point would have been a true AGW prediction before that.

So, it doesn't actually matter whatever: ANY change is due to AGW. And if it's not, just wait a bit.

 

[Frank]

Geez, you want to evacuate all of sw coast of usa? Ohh wait, you don't live there, so you don't care.

And how do you propose funding such an enterprise? Ohh wait, you won't give a penny to help those people who adopted you as a compatriot. My bad, I needn't have asked that...

So those in florida can come and bunk with you, pal?

Here in the Netherlands, we would have a bigger problem, as most of our country is actually below sea-level. But we don't: we take precautions, which the much more wealthy US doesn't seem to be able or want to make.

Oh, and btw: most of your Florida residents would probably be welcome refugees over here, as our government worships the USA.

 

[Frank]

Here's to hoping people drive you out of here the way _xxx_ was.

I strongly disagree: there wouldn't be much discussion if everyone agreed with one another, and I value differing opinions. I'm not living a religion, I learn all the time.

 

[Grall]

I strongly disagree: there wouldn't be much discussion if everyone agreed with one another

And I agree with that. Differences of opinion are invaluable, even the obstructive ones serve a critical function in a democracy by constantly challenging truth, and keeping the honest honest.

I strongly believe that compliance breeds corruption. People like you, or Corduroy, or Xxx for that matter, fill a neccessary function even though I may not always agree with what you're saying.

 

[KimB]

And I was under the impression, that humans are definitely the best at adapting to changes, by a large margin!

Unless you're a conservative, of course. They abhor any change.

I'd actually say bacteria are far better at adapting. Hell, there are bacteria around today that can eat latex, a material that did not exist until we started making it.

Anyway, the way that life in general will adapt is that most things will die out. Species across the world will continue to go extinct until the reduced competition allows the remaining species to survive in the new conditions. Of course, every once in a while there will be the rare species that actually benefits, but most will die.

Now, I expect humans to not go extinct, unlike most species, because yes, we are quite good at adapting. The problem is that it will be very painful for us, with many of us dying in the interim. There is no reason to fuck up our civilization when we can avoid it.

 

[KimB]

Then again, it's exactly the prediction from the AGW crowd since the last few years. Your initial point would have been a true AGW prediction before that.

So, it doesn't actually matter whatever: ANY change is due to AGW. And if it's not, just wait a bit.

Now you're just being intentionally ignorant. You have no interest whatsoever in actually understanding anything. You just want to throw poop at things you don't like.

I mean, when you go so far as to suppose that news reports reflect scientific consensus, news reports which routinely exaggerate and distort what scientists say, and then from the correction to the news reports extrapolate that scientists are lying to you, well, it's very clear that you aren't interested. You just want your ego stroked.

 

[KimB]

And I agree with that. Differences of opinion are invaluable, even the obstructive ones serve a critical function in a democracy by constantly challenging truth, and keeping the honest honest.

I strongly believe that compliance breeds corruption. People like you, or Corduroy, or Xxx for that matter, fill a neccessary function even though I may not always agree with what you're saying.

I strongly disagree with that.

You don't need people holding stupid, idiotic viewpoints to have a diversity of views. If we could do away with the zombie lie that AGW science is unreliable, our world would be a far, far better place. The same is true if we could do away with a wide variety of other superstitious or anti-science views. This would absolutely not eliminate all disagreement: there are a wide variety of views that are simply not up to the evidence (such as whether pizza tastes better than hamburgers), and there are a large number of things where the evidence is not yet settled. Plus even if we could be transported to a magical world where everybody could be convinced based upon evidence (unlike Frank and corduroygt), people would still be routinely mistaken due to a lack of knowledge.

So no, idiocy does not serve a useful function at all. There will be diversity with or without idiocy. And if we got rid of the stupid viewpoints, we could have much better discussions between competing intelligent ones.

 

[Blazkowicz]

the issue is not so much scientifical to me, if we acknowledge it when will the civil society, media, politics?
we're still on a crash course to deplete all fossil resources, can't even decently manage water (the dogmatic and globalized ideology of privatization certainly didn't help)

every government, military and individual who tie their survival to them still actively burns the fuels and seeks new sources instead of leaving them in the ground.

the western-style globalized world lacks democracy (due to everyone sealed in cocoons and from each other, in no small part due to the nature of car travel) and disdains truth. European nations together can't even jail Tony Blair for fuck's sake, we don't even care about basic human rights and the laws of (starting a) war while the mantra about how EU is about peace, "never again", human rights etc. still plays on like the music in Brejnev's soviet union.