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.