Why worrying about global warming is dumb

[CrAz3D]

In snowed in Baghdad, China had coldest winter in 100 years, and snow cover in Siberia, Mongolia, China, and North America is more than since 1966.
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289


Global Cooling, EVERYONE PANIC!

[iago]

Actually, that supports the idea that global climate change is happening.

Keep in mind that "global warming" will cause more severe weather patterns/shifts, which means, for example, colder winters, hotter summers, and more unpredictable events.

[Sidoh]

In snowed in Baghdad, China had coldest winter in 100 years, and snow cover in Siberia, Mongolia, China, and North America is more than since 1966.
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289


Global Cooling, EVERYONE PANIC!

Do you seriously believe that's any sort of evidence against global warming?  As iago said, it actually supports it.

Not taking global warming seriously is a big mistake, even if you don't believe it's happening.

[iago]

Not taking global warming seriously is a big mistake, even if you don't believe it's happening.

I agree -- I'm not 100% convinced that global warming/climate change is happening, but it's definitely safer to assume it is and to live that way.

[Sidoh]

Watch this video.  Ignore the fact that he looks like Bog Saget.

He outlines what seems like common sense to me, but apparently, other people have found it enlightening.

[trust]

Not taking global warming seriously is a big mistake, even if you don't believe it's happening.

I agree -- I'm not 100% convinced that global warming/climate change is happening, but it's definitely safer to assume it is and to live that way.

Of course it is, it's the natural progression of the Earth (i.e. we're not in the Ice Age anymore). So I definitely believe that global climate change is always happening, however I don't think it's the issue that people are making it out to be.

[MyndFyre]

Wow....  The part to worry about is whether or not people are causing it, not whether climate change is happening.

Consider what would be the case if we found out that every time a dog barked, it lost a day of its life.

We have no control over when dogs bark.  People pretty well understand that.  But it would still be a global epidemic - we must stop dogs from barking, or else they'll die!!!

(I'm not saying that this is the case; I'm just illustrating an example).

People are worried about a symptom.  The symptom is easy to worry about; people can understand it, and god knows politicians love to emphasize it.

However, we don't have conclusive evidence of the cause.  There's correlational evidence, but correlation does not reflect causation.  There's discussion as to whether there is increased solar activity that's actually causing global warming (but *gasp*, we can't control the sun!  How can we ever hope to use this as an issue for elective office?!?).

[Warrior]

Global Warming killed Captain Planet.

[CrAz3D]

Actually, that supports the idea that global climate change is happening.

Keep in mind that "global warming" will cause more severe weather patterns/shifts, which means, for example, colder winters, hotter summers, and more unpredictable events.

Nope.  Global Warming related climate change only proved the Global Cooling theory of the 70s.

[abc]

Global Warming killed Captain Planet.

lol

[MyndFyre]

Nope.  Global Warming related climate change only proved the Global Cooling theory of the 70s.

It's funny how you try to be like Rush Limbaugh, but fail miserably.  You're kind of like Sean Hannity.

[CrAz3D]

I have actually never listened to Limbaugh and only watched Hannity a couple of times, seen him in D.C. though !

Do they talk about "Global Cooling" too?  I heard it elsewhere and just thought that it's funny that we go through hot & cold scares ... just like the earth goes through hot & cold cycles.

[Rule]

Not taking global warming seriously is a big mistake, even if you don't believe it's happening.

I agree -- I'm not 100% convinced that global warming/climate change is happening, but it's definitely safer to assume it is and to live that way.

No, it isn't.  Suppose we assume that anthropogenic CO2 emission will be solely responsible for an amount of warming that would cause a sea level rise of 2 feet within the next 100 years, even though based on the evidence at hand, there is a 4% chance that this is actually the case, to within a 95% confidence interval. Based on our unrealistic assumption that the chance of this anthropogenic warming is in fact 100%, ostensibly to remain safe, we initiate CO2 reduction programs that cost the world several trillion dollars over a few decades.  The result?  1 out of 25 times, we have decreased the magnitute of climate changes that likely would not have had catastrophic effects, at the "opportunity cost" of noticeably helping millions of people in great need with that money: whether or not this was the right thing to do then becomes a matter of debate; after all, what's more important, reducing the global temperatures, or providing millions of people with clean drinking water?  In the other 24 out of 25 cases, we have completely wasted money at the expense of extremely good causes.

The numbers I've used here are fictitious, but they serve to make a counter-example against your statement.

[iago]

No, it isn't.  Suppose we assume that anthropogenic CO2 emission will be solely responsible for an amount of warming that would cause a sea level rise of 2 feet within the next 100 years, even though based on the evidence at hand, there is a 4% chance that this is actually the case, to within a 95% confidence interval. Based on our unrealistic assumption that the chance of this anthropogenic warming is in fact 100%, ostensibly to remain safe, we initiate CO2 reduction programs that cost the world several trillion dollars over a few decades.  The result?  1 out of 25 times, we have decreased the magnitute of climate changes that likely would not have had catastrophic effects, at the "opportunity cost" of noticeably helping millions of people in great need with that money: whether or not this was the right thing to do then becomes a matter of debate; after all, what's more important, reducing the global temperatures, or providing millions of people with clean drinking water?  In the other 24 out of 25 cases, we have completely wasted money at the expense of extremely good causes.

The numbers I've used here are fictitious, but they serve to make a counter-example against your statement.

That is true, but in a situation where I don't know the percentages, I think it's safer to err on the side that will end up with this planet being more inhabitable.

I think that reducing pollution is a good thing to do, whether or not it's going to have any influence on climate change.

[iago]

Not taking global warming seriously is a big mistake, even if you don't believe it's happening.

I agree -- I'm not 100% convinced that global warming/climate change is happening, but it's definitely safer to assume it is and to live that way.

Of course it is, it's the natural progression of the Earth (i.e. we're not in the Ice Age anymore). So I definitely believe that global climate change is always happening, however I don't think it's the issue that people are making it out to be.

To get even more specific, we're talking about human-influenced-potentially-destructive-climate-change trends.

[Rule]

That is true, but in a situation where I don't know the percentages, I think it's safer to err on the side that will end up with this planet being more inhabitable.

There are several unknown situations like this though, not just global warming.  In many ways, by taking "global warming" seriously, you are doing so at the expense of other extremely good causes, where there aren't so many unknowns.  In that case you are likely doing harm, but with good intentions.  The problem with your mindset is that it assumes that there's no harm done, and possibly a lot of good done.

I think that reducing pollution is a good thing to do, whether or not it's going to have any influence on climate change.

It's another cost benefit situation.  If the cost to reducing pollution, which can be extremely significant, outweights the benefit, then it's not worth doing.  Yes, pollution continues to cause harm, but the resources in combatting it may be more effectively allocated.  Especially when we may not know what pollution we're looking for, and what it really does.

[iago]

That is true, but in a situation where I don't know the percentages, I think it's safer to err on the side that will end up with this planet being more inhabitable.

There are several unknown situations like this though, not just global warming.  In many ways, by taking "global warming" seriously, you are doing so at the expense of other extremely good causes, where there aren't so many unknowns.  In that case you are likely doing harm, but with good intentions.  The problem with your mindset is that it assumes that there's no harm done, and possibly a lot of good done.

I think that reducing pollution is a good thing to do, whether or not it's going to have any influence on climate change.

It's another cost benefit situation.  If the cost to reducing pollution, which can be extremely significant, outweights the benefit, then it's not worth doing.  Yes, pollution continues to cause harm, but the resources in combatting it may be more effectively allocated.  Especially when we may not know what pollution we're looking for, and what it really does.

That's true. What it really comes down to is the tragedy of the commons -- it is in a company's best interest (and required, in a lot of cases) to not care about the environment in order to be competitive. And as soon as one does it, every other has to, or they fail. That's a simplification, but it's part of the problem.

[Rule]

That is true, but in a situation where I don't know the percentages, I think it's safer to err on the side that will end up with this planet being more inhabitable.

There are several unknown situations like this though, not just global warming.  In many ways, by taking "global warming" seriously, you are doing so at the expense of other extremely good causes, where there aren't so many unknowns.  In that case you are likely doing harm, but with good intentions.  The problem with your mindset is that it assumes that there's no harm done, and possibly a lot of good done.

I think that reducing pollution is a good thing to do, whether or not it's going to have any influence on climate change.

It's another cost benefit situation.  If the cost to reducing pollution, which can be extremely significant, outweights the benefit, then it's not worth doing.  Yes, pollution continues to cause harm, but the resources in combatting it may be more effectively allocated.  Especially when we may not know what pollution we're looking for, and what it really does.

That's true. What it really comes down to is the tragedy of the commons -- it is in a company's best interest (and required, in a lot of cases) to not care about the environment in order to be competitive. And as soon as one does it, every other has to, or they fail. That's a simplification, but it's part of the problem.

We should be careful not to sidetrack too much.  I think reducing pollution and protecting the environment is extremely important, and there are ways we certainly can and should do this.  But I don't agree with the way global warming has been handled.  The Kyoto Protocol is, from how I understand, ineffectual and extremely expensive.  It's throwing a great deal of money at a problem that we don't understand, when that money could be used towards issues we do understand and where we know it would make a world of difference for the better.

I agree that sometimes it is good to regulate corporations, even though this inevitably results in a net loss in economic welfare.  But it's not good to markedly damage the economy, "just in case".   As I said, the money could be spent in a much better way.

Also, did anyone read the articles Crazed posted?  They are much more convincing than he is.   Sunspots are decreasing, and there is good cause now to predict another 'little ice age'.  A reasonably large data set has been collected, and there is evidence that world temperatures have dropped this year enough to "undo" all of the warming of the last century. 

Read:
http://www.dailytech.com/Solar+Activity+Diminishes+Researchers+Predict+Another+Ice+Age/article10630.htm

[CrAz3D]

That is true, but in a situation where I don't know the percentages, I think it's safer to err on the side that will end up with this planet being more inhabitable.

There are several unknown situations like this though, not just global warming.  In many ways, by taking "global warming" seriously, you are doing so at the expense of other extremely good causes, where there aren't so many unknowns.  In that case you are likely doing harm, but with good intentions.  The problem with your mindset is that it assumes that there's no harm done, and possibly a lot of good done.

I think that reducing pollution is a good thing to do, whether or not it's going to have any influence on climate change.

It's another cost benefit situation.  If the cost to reducing pollution, which can be extremely significant, outweights the benefit, then it's not worth doing.  Yes, pollution continues to cause harm, but the resources in combatting it may be more effectively allocated.  Especially when we may not know what pollution we're looking for, and what it really does.

That's true. What it really comes down to is the tragedy of the commons -- it is in a company's best interest (and required, in a lot of cases) to not care about the environment in order to be competitive. And as soon as one does it, every other has to, or they fail. That's a simplification, but it's part of the problem.

We should be careful not to sidetrack too much.  I think reducing pollution and protecting the environment is extremely important, and there are ways we certainly can and should do this.  But I don't agree with the way global warming has been handled.  The Kyoto Protocol is, from how I understand, ineffectual and extremely expensive.  It's throwing a great deal of money at a problem that we don't understand, when that money could be used towards issues we do understand and where we know it would make a world of difference for the better.

I agree that sometimes it is good to regulate corporations, even though this inevitably results in a net loss in economic welfare.  But it's not good to markedly damage the economy, "just in case".   As I said, the money could be spent in a much better way.

Also, did anyone read the articles Crazed posted?  They are much more convincing than he is.   Sunspots are decreasing, and there is good cause now to predict another 'little ice age'.  A reasonably large data set has been collected, and there is evidence that world temperatures have dropped this year enough to "undo" all of the warming of the last century. 

Read:
http://www.dailytech.com/Solar+Activity+Diminishes+Researchers+Predict+Another+Ice+Age/article10630.htm

Also, I think business, with some regulation, can come out ahead.  There are many companies "going green" because it draws more customers.  Sure it's just a marketing ploy, but if it helps other things, why not?  Also, in the long run, it's only BETTER for the economy to "go green."  There will be many new jobs and businesses created if the green market/demand inceases

[Krazed]

Actually, that supports the idea that global climate change is happening.

Keep in mind that "global warming" will cause more severe weather patterns/shifts, which means, for example, colder winters, hotter summers, and more unpredictable events.

Mmm, summer. =(

[c0Ld]

A lot of "professionals" researching global climate change claim that the actual economic impact of cleaning up CO2 emissions is very small due to the large number of new jobs it'd create - both in creating and maintaining filters or what have you. Assuming that's true, you also have to consider the fact that if we do decide to pass laws and regulations to clean up our air/water, it isn't going to hurt the planet in any way -- it'll only help, even if we aren't actually the cause of the climate change after all.

[leet_muffin]

So, right about now, I'm thinking Crazed is probably the best troll ever. And the fact that you guys haven't caught onto that yet kinda' scares me. I mean... honestly using cold weather to disprove global warming....? C'mon, let's give him a round of applause, he's been trolling us for quite a long time now.

[iago]

I should also point out: the majority of "greenhouse gasses" come from the meat industry, not from where you'd expect. So if people are serious about reducing emissions, the first thing they should do is stop eating meat/dairy, then go after cars, industry, etc.

[CrAz3D]

That's an interesting lie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Greenhouse_Gas_by_Sector.png

[iago]

That's an interesting lie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Greenhouse_Gas_by_Sector.png

It doesn't say which industries those are coming from.

For each pound of meat on cattle, it takes 16 pounds of feed. So that's a ton of agriculture. Then there's obviously waste disposal, transportation, fuel, power, etc. involved.

I'm not saying that that graph is wrong, but it doesn't show the cross section that I'm talking about.

Here are some articles about it:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/environment/article/0,28804,1602354_1603074_1603171,00.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0220/p03s01-ussc.html
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3956

[CrAz3D]

It isn't necessarily the MEAT market, it's LIVING BEINGS.  If we stop living we'd stop producing methane like we do now...let's do that.  QUICK!  Kill yourself! 

[iago]

It isn't necessarily the MEAT market, it's LIVING BEINGS.  If we stop living we'd stop producing methane like we do now...let's do that.  QUICK!  Kill yourself! 

Now, go back and read my post and try replying something intelligent.

Also, read the post before that, and try the same thing.

All I'm saying is that the people worried about global climate change should be changing their lifestyles before trying to change others.

[MyndFyre]

It isn't necessarily the MEAT market, it's LIVING BEINGS.  If we stop living we'd stop producing methane like we do now...let's do that.  QUICK!  Kill yourself! 

You are such.... a.... fucking.... idiot....

[CrAz3D]

It isn't necessarily the MEAT market, it's LIVING BEINGS.  If we stop living we'd stop producing methane like we do now...let's do that.  QUICK!  Kill yourself! 

Now, go back and read my post and try replying something intelligent.

Also, read the post before that, and try the same thing.

All I'm saying is that the people worried about global climate change should be changing their lifestyles before trying to change others.

If you switch to vegetarianism, you can shrink your carbon footprint by up to 1.5 tons of carbon dioxide a year, according to research by the University of Chicago. Trading a standard car for a hybrid cuts only about one ton—and isn't as tasty.

Yeah, but think by how much you'd reduce it by killing yourself ... the benefits to the earth as a whole are FAR greater than the cost of life and enjoyment of that life .

It isn't necessarily the MEAT market, it's LIVING BEINGS.  If we stop living we'd stop producing methane like we do now...let's do that.  QUICK!  Kill yourself! 

You are such.... a.... fucking.... idiot....

I'm just pointing out how his "no meat" thoughts lead to outrageous conclusions.

[Explicit]

It isn't necessarily the MEAT market, it's LIVING BEINGS.  If we stop living we'd stop producing methane like we do now...let's do that.  QUICK!  Kill yourself! 

Now, go back and read my post and try replying something intelligent.

Also, read the post before that, and try the same thing.

All I'm saying is that the people worried about global climate change should be changing their lifestyles before trying to change others.

If you switch to vegetarianism, you can shrink your carbon footprint by up to 1.5 tons of carbon dioxide a year, according to research by the University of Chicago. Trading a standard car for a hybrid cuts only about one ton—and isn't as tasty.

Yeah, but think by how much you'd reduce it by killing yourself ... the benefits to the earth as a whole are FAR greater than the cost of life and enjoyment of that life .

If you believe that, then by all means, apply it. The earth will much appreciate it.

[nake2]

In snowed in Baghdad, China had coldest winter in 100 years, and snow cover in Siberia, Mongolia, China, and North America is more than since 1966.
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289


Global Cooling, EVERYONE PANIC!

It seems like for now that the earth is OK but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be prepared for things to come. We should have rational and scientific approaches to this issue because if the earth is even slightly in danger of losing it's ability to provide life we should prevent it the best we can.

[CrAz3D]

Warmer temperatures only means life moves, not dies.

[iago]

Warmer temperatures only means life moves, not dies.

That's true to a point, but severe weather can destroy life, and that's one of the outcomes of global climate change. 

[CrAz3D]

Severe weather already exists, warming would just change the course.  Also, it might counter the additional life that the warmer temps result in

[MyndFyre]

That's true to a point, but severe weather can destroy life, and that's one of the outcomes of global climate change. 

*possible.  Note that we haven't conducted experiments to validate this possibility.

[Sidoh]

Severe weather already exists, warming would just change the course.

You're assuming that warming doesn't have the potential to escalate the severity of weather conditions, which is not safe to assume.

[CrAz3D]

And it's safe to assume that we should stop the warming?  What if THAT throws us into a spin of global cooling like suggested in the 70s?

[MyndFyre]

And it's safe to assume that we should stop the warming?  What if THAT throws us into a spin of global cooling like suggested in the 70s?

He didn't say that.  And while I think it's unsafe to assume it (for the same reasons Rule listed), I think your counter is retarded.

[iago]

That's true to a point, but severe weather can destroy life, and that's one of the outcomes of global climate change. 

*possible.  Note that we haven't conducted experiments to validate this possibility.

Well, yeah. I'm writing under the assumption that human-caused-climate-change is happening, which includes that.

And it's safe to assume that we should stop the warming?  What if THAT throws us into a spin of global cooling like suggested in the 70s?

He didn't say that.  And while I think it's unsafe to assume it (for the same reasons Rule listed), I think your counter is retarded.

See why arguing with CrAz3d is both fun and horrible?

[Sidoh]

And it's safe to assume that we should stop the warming?  What if THAT throws us into a spin of global cooling like suggested in the 70s?

I didn't say that.  Your rhetoric here seems to be suggesting we shouldn't worry about global warming because we don't know much about it.  Ad ignorantiam.

I don't think we should go balls out to counteract it, especially since we have no clue how to do that.  I do think that it should be researched, though.

[CrAz3D]

That's true to a point, but severe weather can destroy life, and that's one of the outcomes of global climate change. 

*possible.  Note that we haven't conducted experiments to validate this possibility.

Well, yeah. I'm writing under the assumption that human-caused-climate-change is happening, which includes that.

And it's safe to assume that we should stop the warming?  What if THAT throws us into a spin of global cooling like suggested in the 70s?

He didn't say that.  And while I think it's unsafe to assume it (for the same reasons Rule listed), I think your counter is retarded.

See why arguing with CrAz3d is both fun and horrible?

Isn't it though?!  I wish I could argue with me sometimes

[Krazed]

That's true to a point, but severe weather can destroy life, and that's one of the outcomes of global climate change. 

*possible.  Note that we haven't conducted experiments to validate this possibility.

Well, yeah. I'm writing under the assumption that human-caused-climate-change is happening, which includes that.

And it's safe to assume that we should stop the warming?  What if THAT throws us into a spin of global cooling like suggested in the 70s?

He didn't say that.  And while I think it's unsafe to assume it (for the same reasons Rule listed), I think your counter is retarded.

See why arguing with CrAz3d is both fun and horrible?

Isn't it though?!  I wish I could argue with me sometimes

Go find a wall, pick a topic, and there you are.

[CrAz3D]

Arguing with a wall isn't arguing with me.  It might be similar, but it can't argue back

[Sidoh]

Arguing with a wall isn't arguing with me.  It might be similar, but it can't argue back

I've known walls that make more rational arguments than you.

[iago]

Back to the original topic, here's a good discussion about global climate change:
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/quirks-blog/2008/02/cold_climate_dont_be_fooled.html

I especially like this line, "Mistaking weather for climate is a common tactic used by those who deny climate change, who say: 'I don't see any global warming.' What this really shows is narrow- minded, shortsighted thinking."

[Warrior]

Arguing with a wall isn't arguing with me.  It might be similar, but it can't argue back

I've known walls that make more rational arguments than you.

this was a pretty good insult
I laughed

[CrAz3D]

Back to the original topic, here's a good discussion about global climate change:
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/quirks-blog/2008/02/cold_climate_dont_be_fooled.html

I especially like this line, "Mistaking weather for climate is a common tactic used by those who deny climate change, who say: 'I don't see any global warming.' What this really shows is narrow- minded, shortsighted thinking."

And isn't mistaking climate change for a disaster pretty bad, too?

[Sidoh]

And isn't mistaking climate change for a disaster pretty bad, too?

Maybe, but recognizing the potential it has to cause disaster is important, which is what we're trying to point out.  You seem to have missed that the last few times, though.

[CrAz3D]

Recognizing the potential isn't the same as "don't eat meat because it kills us all."  That's what iago has been saying, you've been reasonable about it, it seems.

[GS2xx]

And isn't mistaking climate change for a disaster pretty bad, too?

Maybe, but recognizing the potential it has to cause disaster is important, which is what we're trying to point out.  You seem to have missed that the last few times, though.

I agree with Sidoh, I don't believe Global Warming is an non-issue.

[iago]

Recognizing the potential isn't the same as "don't eat meat because it kills us all."  That's what iago has been saying, you've been reasonable about it, it seems.

I'm starting to wonder if you're just trolling, or if you really are that dumb...

[CrAz3D]

Recognizing the potential isn't the same as "don't eat meat because it kills us all."  That's what iago has been saying, you've been reasonable about it, it seems.

I'm starting to wonder if you're just trolling, or if you really are that dumb...

Pretty hard to tell, isn't it?

I'd opt for the latter, but I might just be so good at the former that I come off like Joe, err, dumb, err ... yeah

[iago]

Pretty hard to tell, isn't it?

I'd opt for the latter, but I might just be so good at the former that I come off like Joe, err, dumb, err ... yeah

Hate to break it to you, but between you and Joe, there's no contest.

[Warrior]

the insults are flying
the popcorn is popping

the thread is delivering