Global warming

[Blazkowicz]

I'm sure hitler would send billions condoms a year to Africa .
but he would fischer-tropp the hell out of coal reserves as usual, and be happy to get more nice warm weather for nuremberg type events.

I'm amused at you people jumping at corduroygt's extremism, believing you are thus in turn moderates. beware of that fallacy.

yes, foreign help is important, as well as not adopting or imposing by force nefarious policies. the cancer of so called "free trade" and "modernization" that consists in ruining and enslaving small farmers, destroying public water infrastructures and so on to benefit global corps and a few Pinochets and Mubaraks, that has to end.

 

[pjbliverpool]

So you guys all send a dollar a day to help the starving kids in Africa to get food, clean water, etc? I find that very hard to believe.

If I was to give charity money to every cause that would be affected by continued global warming then I would be fresh out of money in a week.

See what you support is the continuation of activities by "your people" which actively contribute to the problems of "other people" across the entire world. There is a world of difference between being an active cause of the issue, and not contributing to an effort that aims to minimize the impact of one very tiny corner case of that issue.

Its like saying that because you didn't stop to help that guy who had broken down at the side of the road, you're as bad as the mechanic who delibertaly bodged a repair job so that he could have a longer lunch break - even though he knew the result would be a break down.

Hitler is a poor analogy, I am not advocating aggression, only apathy. That's really how we all feel about other people in different continents, don't kid yourselves. If you cared, you'd be sending money to Africa right about now.

Seems like a fairly good analogy to me. Hitler cared only for those individuals that he considered "his people" and if actions to their gain resulted in the suffering of "other people" he was not concerned. How do you differ? We aren't talking about you sitting back and letting the rest of the world destroy itself here, we are talking you (as a US citizen) being a major contributor to the problem and being unwilling to change your ways as long as it's other people being effected and not you. As far as I'm concerned, that's an aggressive stance.

And no, caring about global warming and its impact does not equate to sending money to starving African children.

Global warming effects people in every country of the world in every age group. It effects people alive today and future generations that haven't yet been born. It effects every species on this planet as well as just humans, and it effects, in my opinion at least, our overall credibility as a species. Me sending money to starving african children today would have virtually no baring on any of that. Me cutting down on personal energy use, recycling, and advocating greener technologies and lifestyles however has a direct baring. And that's exactly what I do.

 

[rpg.314]

I simply don't trust the models are anywhere near accurate or comprehensive,

Can you describe even a single climate model before you discard it?

the current models are probably like the models of the Atom we had in 1800s.

What are your grounds for believing that? Do you have any hard, reliable numerical data that points out the infirmities of these models?

 

[WhiningKhan]

So you guys all send a dollar a day to help the starving kids in Africa to get food, clean water, etc? I find that very hard to believe.

As governmental foreign aid alone, I gave 184 euros last year, if we naively spread the sum evenly to all citizens. If we only take tax paying citizens into account, my share was larger. The sums that went to domestic welfare purposes are much higher. Voluntarily I gave a couple of hundred euros to various charities. What's the problem?

 

[corduroygt]

What are your grounds for believing that? Do you have any hard, reliable numerical data that points out the infirmities of these models?

I'm going by NASA's own statements, specifically the "Because clouds are such powerful climate actors, even small changes in average cloud amounts, locations, and type could speed warming, slow it, or even reverse it. Current climate models do not represent cloud physics well" portion. So the current models are not accurate with regards to clouds which only need to be just a little bit different than what's currently predicted to give vastly different results. That is not me, it's NASA and IPCC saying it, and I'm sure you'd regard them as credible.

 

[corduroygt]

Seems like a fairly good analogy to me. Hitler cared only for those individuals that he considered "his people" and if actions to their gain resulted in the suffering of "other people" he was not concerned. How do you differ? We aren't talking about you sitting back and letting the rest of the world destroy itself here, we are talking you (as a US citizen) being a major contributor to the problem and being unwilling to change your ways as long as it's other people being effected and not you. As far as I'm concerned, that's an aggressive stance.

I don't discriminate by race, only by physical proximity.

Global warming effects people in every country of the world in every age group. It effects people alive today and future generations that haven't yet been born. It effects every species on this planet as well as just humans, and it effects, in my opinion at least, our overall credibility as a species.

First, I don't care about anything that happens after I'm dead.
Second, "our credibility as a species?" What a load of bullshit. We don't have to answer to anyone as the human race unless super powerful aliens pay a visit like in that horrible Keanu Reeves movie.
Third, looking at where you come from, you really shouldn't be giving advice about not taking from other people

Feel free to whatever you like, but my priorities have me first and foremost.

 

[hoho]

First, I don't care about anything that happens after I'm dead.

I hope you won't be getting any kids or grandkids. I'd definitely wouldn't like to have parents that don't care about the environment where I'm supposed to live in the future.

As some guy once said, we are borrowing the Earth from our kids. It would kind of suck to screw it up before they get to do anything nice with it.

 

[rpg.314]

I'm going by NASA's own statements, specifically the "Because clouds are such powerful climate actors, even small changes in average cloud amounts, locations, and type could speed warming, slow it, or even reverse it. Current climate models do not represent cloud physics well" portion. So the current models are not accurate with regards to clouds which only need to be just a little bit different than what's currently predicted to give vastly different results. That is not me, it's NASA and IPCC saying it, and I'm sure you'd regard them as credible.

And did you bother to realize that the people who made these comments are studying the effects of clouds, but have enough evidence to believe that AGW happens anyways? Or do you believe only those bits which you want to believe?

As far as Nasa's or ipcc's credibility is concerned, I find them credible enough to believe most of their findings, and don't feel the need for cherry picking their statements.

At any rate, the basic force behind AGW, the overlap of CO2 absorption spectrum, earth's emission spectrum, the increase in CO2 levels and the cooling of stratosphere make the role of clouds somewhat secondary. Looking at the prior milankovitch's cycles makes it plenty clear that temperature is likely to continue rising even if cloud patterns change.

 

[corduroygt]

I hope you won't be getting any kids or grandkids. I'd definitely wouldn't like to have parents that don't care about the environment where I'm supposed to live in the future.

As some guy once said, we are borrowing the Earth from our kids. It would kind of suck to screw it up before they get to do anything nice with it.

They're going to have fusion power or something similar so they can terraform anything with enough energy.

 

[corduroygt]

And did you bother to realize that the people who made these comments are studying the effects of clouds, but have enough evidence to believe that AGW happens anyways? Or do you believe only those bits which you want to believe?

Obviously the data shows AGW is happening, they're going to believe that. The best models also show that it's going to continue. However with a small tweak, the same models can also show much different results. I'm questioning the ability of the current models to predict the future.

 

[hoho]

They're going to have fusion power or something similar so they can terraform anything with enough energy.

Maybe in about 4-5 generations we have it. I'd be surprised if we get first energy-positive fusion plant up and running within 3-4 decades, let alone enough of them to cover all the needs. Also, no matter how much energy you have there are stuff we are using daily that we can only produce from oil. Similarly you can't exactly recreate and repopulate natural habitats of then dead plants and animals even with unlimited energy.

 

[pjbliverpool]

They're going to have fusion power or something similar so they can terraform anything with enough energy.

Putting aside the absurdness of that statement for a moment, how do you propose fusion power be developed if the worlds richest and arguably most technologically advanced country devotes its resources to the current generation and fossil fuels as suggested by you while ignoring the development of greener alternatives - like fusion power.

Or do you accept that some money does have to be invested for future generations?

 

[corduroygt]

Putting aside the absurdness of that statement for a moment, how do you propose fusion power be developed if the worlds richest and arguably most technologically advanced country devotes its resources to the current generation and fossil fuels as suggested by you while ignoring the development of greener alternatives - like fusion power.

Or do you accept that some money does have to be invested for future generations?

When the greener alternatives make sense, they should be developed to improve everybody's quality of life. That means any alternative that's not going to cost more than fossil fuels, and not going to force to change our lifestyle to live in cramped conditions or sit next to smelly people in a bus or a train, aka nuclear only.

R&D is always going to go on even after I'm dead, everyone pays for it and has paid for it in the past. However no one yet had to pay for AGW in the US, and my generation won't be the first one that starts to either. When we finally have the means to make virtually unlimited and virtually free energy, we can just throw a lot of energy at any natural problems we have and solve them.

 

[rpg.314]

However with a small tweak, the same models can also show much different results.

Sure, if you repeal the laws of nature.

I'm questioning the ability of the current models to predict the future.

What's your basis other than cherry picked statements by some of the biggest supporters of AGW?

 

[corduroygt]

What's your basis other than cherry picked statements by some of the biggest supporters of AGW?

Why isn't that enough for you. I've looked into AGW as far as most people will look, and that's to visit the NASA climate site. It said there that there were a lot of uncertainties in their models. That's all I need to know since I'm not a climate scientist. I also know that human attempts to predict the future in anything fail much more often than they succeed.

 

[pjbliverpool]

I don't discriminate by race, only by physical proximity.

Ah fair enough, that's much better then

BTW, I think the words you were looking for were nationality, and generation. The good kind of discrimination that only decent folk partake in

First, I don't care about anything that happens after I'm dead.

Somehow that fails to surprise me.

Second, "our credibility as a species?" What a load of bullshit. We don't have to answer to anyone as the human race unless super powerful aliens pay a visit like in that horrible Keanu Reeves movie.

We have to asnwer to ourselves. Taking the attitude that we have the right to destroy the planet that created us and all thespecies that share it with us would make us pretty low IMO. So what if no other species can take usto task on it. If you live in a lawless society is it okay to rape and murder because there's no-one to punish you or tell you what you're doing is wrong?

Third, looking at where you come from, you really shouldn't be giving advice about not taking from other people

I'm sorry, exactly what baring does my countries past or present views have on my own personal opinion?

Feel free to whatever you like, but my priorities have me first and foremost.

As do mine. Yours however veer more towards the "me to the exclusion of everyone and eveything else" end of the spectrum. I'll look after myself and those that I love first but I'll balance that against my impact on everything else.

 

[pjbliverpool]

When the greener alternatives make sense, they should be developed to improve everybody's quality of life. That means any alternative that's not going to cost more than fossil fuels, and not going to force to change our lifestyle to live in cramped conditions or sit next to smelly people in a bus or a train, aka nuclear only.

So you're saying that regardless of the negative effects fossil fuels are having right now on other people, the planet and future generations, it only "makes sense" to invest in greener alternatives as long as it costs you nothing and has no impact on your life? Despite the fact that you are one of the heaviest users of fossil fuels?

Okay I think we've just come full circle back to your original argument.

R&D is always going to go on even after I'm dead, everyone pays for it and has paid for it in the past. However no one yet had to pay for AGW in the US, and my generation won't be the first one that starts to either. When we finally have the means to make virtually unlimited and virtually free energy, we can just throw a lot of energy at any natural problems we have and solve them.

And if that fails we can always ask Santa to fix it.

 

[corduroygt]

We have to asnwer to ourselves. Taking the attitude that we have the right to destroy the planet that created us and all the species that share it with us would make us pretty low IMO

As far as every other species are concerned, we are gods and can do whatever the hell we want.

I'm sorry, exactly what baring does my countries past or present views have on my own personal opinion?

Lol, I meant Liverpool, not UK. Petty theft is a sport there besides stadium disasters, and by the way, we also own your football club.
My personal emissions are not that much to begin with, so I really don't see how it effects people in other places all by itself.

 

[rpg.314]

Why isn't that enough for you.

Because that is cherry picking the comfortable bits.

It said there that there were a lot of uncertainties in their models.

IPCC is pretty clear in saying that there is a >90% chance of AGW. If you want, you can still go with the <10% option. But some might call that living in denial.

If you choose to ignore the fact that the level of uncertainty is less than the level of certainty we have in the AGW hypothesis, I can only hope that people like you go on to hold positions of power in your country. After all, there's nothing like watching your competitors burn to ground, is there?

 

[corduroygt]

Because that is cherry picking the comfortable bits.

IPCC is pretty clear in saying that there is a >90% chance of AGW. If you want, you can still go with the <10% option. But some might call that living in denial.

My argument is that they admit their models are shaky right there on the webpage, and even if they're right, effects of AGW in North America are not very significant. I have nothing to worry about AGW personally, and that's all that matters to me.