Everybody likes to think they're smart. Everybody likes to think they're special, unique, independent, or somehow "apart from the mold." This is rarely the case. Whenever I hear someone ranting about how "all people are sheep," the unwritten subtext appears to be "...except for me, of course. I'm special."

We're all conformists and nonconformists. We're all smart in some ways and stupid in others. Even me. Even you. The trick is figuring out what you don't know, and adjusting yourself accordingly. Learn it, avoid it, or find someone who can do it for you.

Racht: But what if we...I don't know...stopped doing things that are bad to the earth? Pretty much every other species seems to find a way to live in harmony with it. Why can't we?

That would be completely awesome and likely increase our likelihood of surviving longer as a species. Which is what a big part of the "green" movement has been about - sustainability. How to live with the earth instead of just using it up.

benlonghair: OlafTheBent: ... and yet, that is the debate. Are we (humans) changing what the Earth is doing?

Yes and no. It depends on how you look at it. Look at it this way: The earth is not ours, we are the earths. (This is one of the really cool aspects of modern religion, it allows us to believe that we control and own the earth because 'god' chose us over lions and tigers and slugs.)

We seem to think we are the be-all and end-all of this world's living creatures.

You need to brush up on your modern religion. God did state that we would be over the lions and tigers and slugs, but He also said to take care of the lions and tigers and slugs.(Gen. 1:28).

I have never argued that we shouldn't be more environmentally friendly.

/Show of hands - how many are flying to Copenhagen next week?

SpaceyCat: Racht: But what if we...I don't know...stopped doing things that are bad to the earth? Pretty much every other species seems to find a way to live in harmony with it. Why can't we?

That would be completely awesome and likely increase our likelihood of surviving longer as a species. Which is what a big part of the "green" movement has been about - sustainability. How to live with the earth instead of just using it up.

Seriously, what are you two envisioning happening? The surface temperature of the earth rising to 180 degrees? The atmosphere losing all of its oxygen? How do you think these "zomg we're all gonna die if we don't stop global climate change" things will actually occur?

SpaceyCat: superdolfan1: Who's funding "your" side? Have you ever wondered about that? And what they stand to lose by having data that shows global warming is not man made?

"Follow the money" is always a good thing to do, no matter what is being done. And it should be part of any critical review of anything you're reading/researching/etc. research is NOT done in a vacuum.

Yes, there is a HUGE market for "green" things. And there is as much to lose on the opposite side. Both sides have bias and have lied. Doesn't mean everyone on both sides are wrong or should be ignored.

One really good thing about science is that things will be changed and modified as new evidence is found and studied. Eventually we'll get to an understanding as to what is going on.

This. Argument over.

Theaetetus: I haven't seen polar bears recycling or sharks mulching, and have you seen the overpopulation problem in termite mounds?

A fair amount of species do not have the mobility that humans do. When their food supplies run out where they are, they're pretty much farked. A lot of species coexist in this fashion. Lemmings is one species that has a cycle of boom and bust. (pops) Their predators follow those cycles. But there are many reasons for this cycle.

Racht: Theaetetus:
I haven't seen polar bears recycling or sharks mulching

Because they don't have to. Things like recycling are our ways of trying to make up for the oversized impact we have on the planet. Polar bears don't do anything that would require specific sustainability efforts.

Tell that to the millions of species that have gone extinct throughout history.

Racht: Theaetetus:
Seriously, what are you two envisioning happening? The surface temperature of the earth rising to 180 degrees?

No, that's completely hyperbolic. Nor do I see a species extinction anytime in the foreseeable future. But the current projections of a 4-6 degree rise in the next century do have somewhat large environmental impacts. Most notably in terms of how many humans will be affected, significant reductions in agricultural production in much of Africa and Asia and significant flooding in heavily populated poorer urban areas (not to mention the outright permanent flooding of several countries).

Yep. But there will be increases in agricultural production in other places and places previously unlivable will become livable. Rather than saying "omg, we have to prevent any possible climate change or we'll all die", we should be asking what the net effect will be: will global food production decline, increase, or stay the same; will the land surface area suitable for population decline, increase, or stay the same; etc.

Skail: ...ot entirely certain, all science is wrong and we should just pray to a sky-wizard for help. Which is obviously the correct response.

That should've been the end of what I just posted. Alas, the Fark gods frown upon my shenanigans.

Thanks. Thought you were pulling a Sopranos ending on us.

superdolfan1: Nobody is arguing that there is climate change. They are arguing WHY it is happening

I agree with you that appropriate skepticism should be applied to all data, from any field. That's the way science should (and generally does) work. I'm not all that concerned about the funding by 'Big Hemp' influencing the science.

But your point is largely irrelevant anyways. Even if we choose to discount ACC as an issue, that doesn't change other pressing issues, or what needs to be done.

Here are some facts we should be able to agree on:
- We (North Americans) consume at a rate that requires the resources of 7 earths to sustain.
- The resources of the planet are finite
- easy sources of minerals, rare earth minerals, high quality coal, easily accessible oil, and lots and lots of other resources we require to maintain our way of life are rapidly diminishing.
- pollution, specifically ground water contamination by heavy metals, threatens all species. Making such water potable is prohibitively expensive
- International conflict is, at least in part, related to energy security arguments.

The solution to all of these issues happens to be the same as the direction for dealing with ACC: Conserve, don't be wasteful, reduce unnecessary consumption, develop and exploit alternatives where available. for the most part, we're talking about changes that won't even be detectable in the precious American Way of Life^TM.

What surprises me about your position is that it's not particularly conservative, and I have no idea why you would take it.

If you want to argue the economics, and who stands to gain from green legislation- You're right, the people that have had the vision and foresight to enter those markets early will benefit. As an American, I would think at the very least you would have the entrepreneurial instincts to recognize that it's irrelevant why people want green products, only that there is profit to be had.

And if you're worried about impending legislation, use it as an opportunity. Demand a carbon tax that is revenue neutral and offset with a cut in payroll taxes. That way, everyone's tax burden remains precisely what it is today, with each citizen given the option of reducing their tax burden merely by changing whatever consumption habits they choose. Want to drive a Hummer? No Prob. But you'll be filling up with $7 gas when you do it.

In what respect Charlie?

Racht: Species go extinct because the environment no longer supports them. If your argument is that we should follow the natural course of species and just keep doing what we're doing into extinction, well, that's an argument I guess. Personally, given that we're rational and intelligent and other species that go extinct aren't, I'd like to think we can choose behavior that puts us on a sustainable course.

Or, because we're a rational and intelligent species, we can adapt to environmental changes. Oh, no, the lush greenery of Ireland is now buried under ice? Well, fark it, let's move to the new lush greenery of Sudan. Oh, no, Washington, D.C. is under water? Well, fark it, we'll move the capital to New Washington, D.C., formerly known as Denver.
Come on, name two possible scenarios that could result from global climate change that will actually cause humans to go extinct. I'll even give you the first one - the drive for mass migration sets off angry territorial wars and someone fires off a bunch of nukes. But that's more about wars and humanity, rather than climate change. Also, climate change doesn't happen fast enough that there would be massive invasions for resettlement purposes.

Racht: Theaetetus:
Yep. But there will be increases in agricultural production in other places and places previously unlivable will become livable. Rather than saying "omg, we have to prevent any possible climate change or we'll all die", we should be asking what the net effect will be: will global food production decline, increase, or stay the same; will the land surface area suitable for population decline, increase, or stay the same; etc.

You're correct that we absolutely should be asking those questions. That's a debate worth having. Of course, that would require an admittance that temperatures are noticably rising and are going to continue to noticably rise, and shifting the question to whether that's a good thing or not. I would encourage people I disagree with to do so, because we're then at least both arguing from a basic of scientific evidence.

Well, yeah. Plus, then it gets away from the "are we causing it or not" question. It's happening. Could be natural, could be us. Now, is it necessarily a bad thing?

The main thing the conservation people have correct is the need to reduce our consumption of oil. It's a limited resource, and we need it to make plastic. Setting it on fire is just wasteful.

Zulu_as_Kono: superdolfan1: The "green" industry is fast becoming as powerful as the energy industry.

Really? Care to support that with something like facts?

Here you go.aden_nak: superdolfan1: aden_nak: I might be more inclined to listen to the "other" side of the argument if it wasn't completely funded by the industries most likely to see a decrease in profits due to global warming.

Who's funding "your" side? Have you ever wondered about that? And what they stand to lose by having data that shows global warming is not man made?

Please name for me the fantastically profitable corporate entity that has a vested interest in proving global warming true, consequences be damned.

Here you go (new window). Or here (new window). Enjoy.

Mobkey: But why do you care? You honestly want to save a big rock over our species? We are probably meant to go extinct like every other species, except for the small problem of being smart enough to stop it. Hopefully.

I live here too, you know. I have to breathe the air and pollutants that people are throwing into the air all across the planet. Why should I NOT care?

Do you not get it? Without this big rock, we're dead! Yes, we'll probably go extinct. If we continue on blindly, assuming we're doing nothing wrong, is insane. We are changing our environment. We need to study and know how/what we're doing. Find out if what we're doing is bad or good for the planet.

We already know that adding pollutants is bad. The question is how bad.

Theaetetus: Seriously, what are you two envisioning happening? The surface temperature of the earth rising to 180 degrees? The atmosphere losing all of its oxygen? How do you think these "zomg we're all gonna die if we don't stop global climate change" things will actually occur?

*snerk* No. Nothing as drastic as that. But keeping your head in the sand and ignoring the changes that we make to our environment is bad. We need to study what we do and what it does. Change what we do to keep our adverse effects to a minimum.

superdolfan1: This. Argument over.

Obviously not, since it'll continue. There are hysterics on both sides.

SpaceyCat: *snerk* No. Nothing as drastic as that. But keeping your head in the sand and ignoring the changes that we make to our environment is bad. We need to study what we do and what it does. Change what we do to keep our adverse effects to a minimum.

Yeah, but we don't necessarily know that temperature increases are an adverse effect. The movement seems to basically say "something is changing, therefore it's bad". What's funny is that in every other circumstance, it's uttered by conservatives, not progressives.

unyon: superdolfan1: Nobody is arguing that there is climate change. They are arguing WHY it is happening

I agree with you that appropriate skepticism should be applied to all data, from any field. That's the way science should (and generally does) work. I'm not all that concerned about the funding by 'Big Hemp' influencing the science.

But your point is largely irrelevant anyways. Even if we choose to discount ACC as an issue, that doesn't change other pressing issues, or what needs to be done.

Here are some facts we should be able to agree on:
- We (North Americans) consume at a rate that requires the resources of 7 earths to sustain.
- The resources of the planet are finite
- easy sources of minerals, rare earth minerals, high quality coal, easily accessible oil, and lots and lots of other resources we require to maintain our way of life are rapidly diminishing.
- pollution, specifically ground water contamination by heavy metals, threatens all species. Making such water potable is prohibitively expensive
- International conflict is, at least in part, related to energy security arguments.

The solution to all of these issues happens to be the same as the direction for dealing with ACC: Conserve, don't be wasteful, reduce unnecessary consumption, develop and exploit alternatives where available. for the most part, we're talking about changes that won't even be detectable in the precious American Way of LifeTM.

What surprises me about your position is that it's not particularly conservative, and I have no idea why you would take it.

If you want to argue the economics, and who stands to gain from green legislation- You're right, the people that have had the vision and foresight to enter those markets early will benefit. As an American, I would think at the very least you would have the entrepreneurial instincts to recognize that it's irrelevant why people want green products, only that there is profit to be had.

And if you're worried about impending legislation, use it as an opportunity. Demand a carbon tax that is revenue neutral and offset with a cut in payroll taxes. That way, everyone's tax burden remains precisely what it is today, with each citizen given the option of reducing their tax burden merely by changing whatever consumption habits they choose. Want to drive a Hummer? No Prob. But you'll be filling up with $7 gas when you do it.

Quite the contrary. My position, although not stated in this thread, is very conservation oriented.

Instead of plunging billions of dollars into something that is perhaps a farce, why not begin by conserving.

I do not, nor have I ever, owned an SUV. 16 mpg (or less) is why we're in the gasoline situation we're in.

There's not a single incandescent lightbulb in my house.

Thermostat is always below 68 in the winter time and above 74 in the summer time (my wife is not amused by this).

Recycle everything.

Flow control shower heads. All under 1.5 gpm (again, my wife is not pleased).

All my appliances are EnergyStar rated.

My main mode of transportation when it's not raining or below 40 degrees gets 60 mpg or better.

So you see, yes, conservation is my primary objective. I believe it's our responsibility to take care of the planet. But I am not arrogant enough to think that mankind is responsible for the climate change we're going through at this time.

Theaetetus: Yeah, but we don't necessarily know that temperature increases are an adverse effect. The movement seems to basically say "something is changing, therefore it's bad". What's funny is that in every other circumstance, it's uttered by conservatives, not progressives.

No argument there. the hysterics on both sides need to STFU. Both sides have valid points. All the data needs to be looked at and evaluated. I'm not saying "do nothing" or "do it all". I'm saying, ok, we know dumping chemicals into the drinking water is bad, so lets stop doing that. What else are we doing that's bad? OK, stop doing that and try something else.

Oh, and those geeks that like to give spare CPU cycles to research, like Seti@home, the climate group has their own thingy: ClimatePrediction.net (pops)

SpaceyCat: No argument there. the hysterics on both sides need to STFU. Both sides have valid points. All the data needs to be looked at and evaluated. I'm not saying "do nothing" or "do it all". I'm saying, ok, we know dumping chemicals into the drinking water is bad, so lets stop doing that. What else are we doing that's bad? OK, stop doing that and try something else.

Yeah... My only problem with that is that the arguments "putting heavy metals in the drinking water is bad for the Earth!" or "air pollution is bad for the Earth!" are needlessly anthropomorphizing this inanimate ball of rock we live on. Those things are bad for us. Saying "air pollution causes asthma and lung cancer and increased insurance costs" is a lot more direct and more likely to make people stop than "air pollution makes Gaia sick!"

superdolfan1: But I am not arrogant enough to think that mankind is 100% responsible for the climate change we're going through at this time.

FTFM

Yeah, we make changes, and a lot of them locally. There is some expansion to a global scale, just based on how many changes we make in so many places. It's just a matter of determining what changes we make on the global scale and if the changes are adversely affecting (effecting?) the planet.

Theaetetus: Yeah... My only problem with that is that the arguments "putting heavy metals in the drinking water is bad for the Earth!" or "air pollution is bad for the Earth!" are needlessly anthropomorphizing this inanimate ball of rock we live on. Those things are bad for us. Saying "air pollution causes asthma and lung cancer and increased insurance costs" is a lot more direct and more likely to make people stop than "air pollution makes Gaia sick!"

The anthropomorphizing is nauseating, but it doesn't negate the fact that shiatting in your own house is bad for you.

ne2d: Everything should be debated.

Water is not wet now?

Racht: Maybe we can, maybe we can't. Depends on what the changes are. More than likely the USA can, as we're a rich and prosperous country. What's Africa going to do? They can't even feed themselves as is. Is it any consolation to them that we'll be able to grow more grain in Canada if even more of them starve because of climate change? Who are you to say we get to make that choice for them?

There's a good chance that Africa would end up greener.
Well, parts of it, anyways.

Anyway, here's the main point: the planet's been around for a long time before we were here. I consider us to be stewards of it, not masters of it. My goal is to hand it to the next generation as it was handed to me, the same way you leave a campsite.

Pfff. I say leave it better. Build a bench. Maybe a whole hut. Saying "all change is bad" without recognizing whether the change is positive or negative is shortsighted.

If we can leave things like they are now instead of tinkering around with an immensely complex system whose potential results we can't fully predict or understand, why wouldn't we?

That same thinking is what leads people to protest the LHC.

SpaceyCat: The anthropomorphizing is nauseating, but it doesn't negate the fact that shiatting in your own house is bad for you.

But the answer isn't to not shiat. Shiat in the garden and build a compost pile. Positive effect.

/provided the compost pile is downwind of your house

Theaetetus: But the answer isn't to not shiat. Shiat in the garden and build a compost pile. Positive effect.

Definitely. This is not an argument that is black or white. Part of the difficulty is getting people to realize that the stench from your compost pile can effect someone a couple of houses over and needs to be fixed.

FTFA: Storms are becoming more violent.
[citation needed]


I have yet to see a night temperature in Atlanta below freezing, and it's December. Unheard of.

This is not evidence of global warming anymore than last winter being cold in another city is evidence of global cooling.

/there is global warming though

SpaceyCat: The anthropomorphizing is nauseating, but it doesn't negate the fact that shiatting in your own house is bad for you.

I shat in my house, but I have indoor plumbing.

impaler: I shat in my house, but I have indoor plumbing.

Thankfully, a good portion of the people living in North America do. But it can still stink.

Racht: Theaetetus:
There's a good chance that Africa would end up greener.
Well, parts of it, anyways.

...It doesn't work like that. Africa is already very hot. The parts that would end up greener are places like lower Canada and Russia. Africa would turn into even more of a desert than it actually is.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7220807.stm

1) link bad
2) It does work like that, actually. Global "warming" is a misnomer - parts of the globe are increasing in average temperature, but other parts are cooling. That's why global "climate change" is a better term:

There are other interesting potential effects, for example... If Greenland's glacier melted or slid into the ocean, it would upset the flow of the gulf stream across the northern atlantic... The gulf stream carries warm equatorial waters right to Ireland, warming it significantly - it's at the same latitude as northern Ontario, for example, but is lush and green and it hardly ever snows. Disrupt the gulf stream, and Ireland and England could end up covered in ice. Not really global warming.
Similarly, other currents around the world would shift, bringing moist air into the Sahara and making it not a desert. It doesn't matter that it's warm there already - it could get cooler, depending on how the currents change, such as bringing cold water up from the south pole.

Theaetetus: If Greenland's glacier melted or slid into the ocean, it would upset the flow of the gulf stream across the northern atlantic...

What was that bad climate disaster movie a few years ago?